Questions for JPHolding [Archive]

jpholding

March 3rd 2003, 08:51 PM

In rides the dinkysaur, still thinking he can make ham sandwiches out of his pig's snout,

Except it's quite different, ****. For some reason, you've got a special, unique arrangement with the mods here that creates an auto-fill of asterisks for your name. Nobody else here enjoys such a situation of special privilege.

No one as yet has needed it, my dear Saur Loser. :yipee:

Never mind that your rationale for hiding behind the pseudonym doesn't hold up under scrutiny - "Secret Agent Prison Librarian" must be real tough stuff you have to deal with - even though you're no longer working in that capacity, eh?

Oh, dear Sauron, when or IF you actually have the GUTS and the NERVE to work behind a gate, do let us know. Based on your loud mouth and inability to put forward a defense, you would be the "duck" of a 6' 8", 300-lb inmate named Bubba within 5 minutes. You'd also probably look interesting with a shank in your back made of a library card catalog drawer rod.

Speaking of bypassing challenges, when are you going to take Farrell Till up on his challenge to debate in a public forum

FTill has had his offer to debate here and refused because he couldn't decide which sock went on which foot. As for public, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a website is not "public". Perhaps you possess that elusive insight others seem to lack. That is, if your parrot beak is not too tired. "hrm:

where you can't retract your statements

Examples? Or is that just more bulldada from the parrot's beak? :rofl:

and where you don't edit your opponent's remarks?

Still waiting for an effectual example from your crowd, Mr Hook Line and Sinker. :lol: Tiny Tim Taylor just got embarrassed trying to provide one. Your turn?

What? Did you think nobody knew about that?

Oh, I am sure they have their deluded fantasies. When it comes to actual effective examples, though, they seem rather scarce. Maybe you'll be the first.

I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. You've already had your butt kicked; why beat a dead horse?

I.e., you have your packaged excuse for evading. I understand. :thumb: Your reputation as Dark Lord cannot be tarnished; interchange with me would prove you are Smeegle.

Otherwise, your lame resorts to psychoanalysis seem to be all you have. Poor Yellow Saur. :rofl:

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 09:49 PM

03-03-2003 @ 04:51 PM
jpholding:

In rides the dinkysaur, still thinking he can make ham sandwiches out of his pig's snout,

Where *do* you get those wonderful quotes?

Tell me, how's the prison librarian business doing these days? Oh, that's right - you're no longer in that line of work, are you? Thus the justification for your pseudonym has, um, expired - shall we say?

Except it's quite different, For some reason, you've got a special, unique arrangement with the mods here that creates an auto-fill of asterisks for your name. Nobody else here enjoys such a situation of special privilege.

No one as yet has needed it, my dear Saur Loser. :yipee:

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

You don't "need" it; you simply *want* it.

Admin note: I see that your respect for my request was short-lived Sauron - post edited to remove reference to JP's real name.

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 09:53 PM

03-03-2003 @ 04:51 PM
jpholding:

Never mind that your rationale for hiding behind the pseudonym doesn't hold up under scrutiny - &quot;Secret Agent Prison Librarian&quot; must be real tough stuff you have to deal with - even though you're no longer working in that capacity, eh?

Oh, dear Sauron, when or IF you actually have the GUTS and the NERVE to work behind a gate, do let us know.

Oh, the truth is that being a prison librarian is hardly the blood-and-guts occupation that you make it out to be. My father was a prison guard for several years; as was my grandfather. My nephew works in a sex offender facility in New England. Suffice it to say that your cloak-and-dagger claims of threats are all dino-poop.

Based on your loud mouth and inability to put forward a defense, you would be the "duck" of a 6' 8", 300-lb inmate named Bubba within 5 minutes. You'd also probably look interesting with a shank in your back made of a library card catalog drawer rod.

Your personal fantasies are your own. By the way: want to go over one more time the contradictory rationale why you use a pseudonym?

Admin note: Edited to remove references to JP's real name.

Sauron

March 3rd 2003, 09:59 PM

03-03-2003 @ 04:51 PM
jpholding:

Speaking of bypassing challenges, when are you going to take Farrell Till up on his challenge to debate in a public forum

FTill has had his offer to debate here and refused because he couldn't decide which sock went on which foot.

Untrue. But don't let the truth slow you down; you're on a roll, baby!

As for public, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a website is not "public".

"Public" wasn't the only criterion. Perhaps you should take remedial reading.

where you can't retract your statements

Examples? Or is that just more bulldada from the parrot's beak? :rofl:

Examples include several responses from members of the Infidels, who responded to your statements. Only to have you go back and edit your responses, and then pretend that you hadn't changed your position.

And then, of course, there's the selective quotation of your opponent - leaving out critical parts of their responses, so as to make them an easier strawman for you to knock down.

And finally, the refusal to link to the opponent's original argument, so that your audience has the benefit of full disclosure of both viewpoints, without editorial tinkering on your part.

What - you didn't think we all noticed? You're not very good at covering your tracks - except with slime, that is.

Of course, you've failed to take up the Infidels challenge either - a debate on the Infidels website. You've got the "backpedal ballet" down to a fine art, "edited to remove reference to Holdings name".

jpholding

March 4th 2003, 12:20 PM

In rides Barney the dinosaur, still singing that same old song,

Where *do* you get those wonderful quotes?

From the multi-dimensional world of associational creativity. You may try it some time in order to improve your disposition. Do tell us, Saurbraten, just how interesting a hobby IS sucking lemons?

Tell me, how's the prison librarian business doing these days?
Oh, that's right - you're no longer in that line of work, are you? Thus the justification for your pseudonym has, um, expired - shall we say?

Oh, more or less, the threat is diminshed. There are perhaps two people in particular I am concerned about. But these days I havae decided to be a jackass about it in order to make a point about lack of common Skeptical principles, and to show just how petty Saur losers like you can get. :rofl:

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Bzzt. Your hair is standing on end.

You don't "need" it; you simply *want* it.

Oh, I need it all right. For my purposes I need it.

Oh, the truth is that being a prison librarian is hardly the blood-and-guts occupation that you make it out to be. My father was a prison guard for several years; as was my grandfather. My nephew works in a sex offender facility in New England. Suffice it to say that your cloak-and-dagger claims of threats are all dino-poop.

You're the expert in poop, that's certain. So then, you wish to tell me that your relatives never had a stabbing in their facility? Never had physical threats made to them? How quickly were they fired from their positions for lack of observational skills and lack of control of the inmate population? As an aside would you please provide here your real name, address, and phone number so that we may distribute it to Florida's inmate population? Bubba says you look nice in those pants. :lol:

Your personal fantasies are your own. By the way: want to go over one more time the contradictory rationale why you use a pseudonym?

Go ahead and spread that delusion. I have seen about three different Skeptical commentaries on the subject, all of them partly wrong and most of them clearly derived from FTill's cuckoo-clock manifestations of intellect. As for personal fantasies, perhaps you'd like to visit a prison and explain to these nice deluded folks how all those homemade weapons are just "personal fantasies" on their part, and how the inmates really just use those to open letters. At the same time be sure and tell them how deluded they are to say things like, These brave men and women risk their very lives every day to protect and serve the citizens of their communities. Bunch of crybabies, huh! :rofl:

Untrue. But don't let the truth slow you down; you're on a roll, baby!

Rolling over you flat indeed, little Hobbit.

"Public" wasn't the only criterion. Perhaps you should take remedial reading.

Perhaps you should actually explain why websites remain unsuitable forums rather than dodging the question :lol: A true disciple of his father, FTill.

Examples include several responses from members of the Infidels, who responded to your statements.

That was very specific! I congratulate you. :rofl:

Only to have you go back and edit your responses, and then pretend that you hadn't changed your position.

Once again we ask: examples. No vague childhood memories while sucking your thumb, please. No vague claptrap, no "I can think of several" yaps. Your beak is losing its polish, Polly.

And then, of course, there's the selective quotation of your opponent - leaving out critical parts of their responses, so as to make them an easier strawman for you to knock down.

Specific examples seem to have eluded you yet again. So far ***Almighty God*** FTill has only provided examples where I didn't disagree with what he said anyway (or didn't agree with the position he criticized) or places where he had arguments with steps A-H, where B-H were dependent on A, and in answering A I made B-H irrelevant. Come now, Polly, do better than that. I have a nice Ritz cracker for you if you can do it.

And finally, the refusal to link to the opponent's original argument, so that your audience has the benefit of full disclosure of both viewpoints, without editorial tinkering on your part.

Yes, I am sorry, Skeptics are too dumb to use search engines. :rofl: I forget that. Of course you have yet to provide an actual example of such tinkering, so the point is moot. Cough it up, Polly. Let's go.

What - you didn't think we all noticed? You're not very good at covering your tracks - except with slime, that is.

As of now you are tracking a Tyrannosaur who is about to step on you. Well, if that happens, slime will follow the tracks thereafter, undoubtedly.

Of course, you've failed to take up the Infidels challenge either - a debate on the Infidels website. You've got the "backpedal ballet" down to an art

Is there a challenge? Oh well, too bad. For reasons of wishing to support this venture, TWeb is my home for such affairs and anyone can come here as easily as you did. Those who wish to risk having a Nureyev kick delivered to their hindquarters are welcome to show up for some one on one.

Polly wanna cracker?

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 03:15 PM

Where *do* you get those wonderful quotes?

From the multi-dimensional world of associational creativity.

I think you mean assocational dysfunctionality, if the rest of your posting is any indication.

Tell me, how's the prison librarian business doing these days?
Oh, that's right - you're no longer in that line of work, are you? Thus the justification for your pseudonym has, um, expired - shall we say?

Oh, more or less, the threat is diminshed.

As if there ever was any real threat in the first place.

Considering the fact that you would have been employed under your REAL name, and not your pompous pseudonym, the prison population already has access to this piece of critical information that you so desperately try to hide.

So now once again: want to explain how you use a pseudonym, in order to keep your real identity a secret? From the same prison population, that already knows your real identity? And always did?

I suspect that the real issue here is that your ego decided that someone of your "towering intellect" (ahem) should write under a pseudonym, since ALL great authors (ahem) did so. Either that, or you're not too keen about a last name that rhymes with the star of that mindless sitcom, "Erkel". :D

There never was any prison danger, especially consider that Lake Correctional Institute (where you worked) has this description:

This facility was originally established as a migrant labor camp, but more recently housed a bait farm and beverage distribution warehouse. In 1973 it was converted to house adult male inmates. It is designated to accept minimum, medium, close custody and all medical grade inmates. Lake C. I. provides academic, vocational and self- betterment programs.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.

Bzzt. Your hair is standing on end.

Not me; have you seen the hair on your avatar lately? :rofl:

You don't "need" it; you simply *want* it.

Oh, I need it all right. For my purposes I need it.

If you define "purposes" as stroking ego.

Oh, the truth is that being a prison librarian is hardly the blood-and-guts occupation that you make it out to be. My father was a prison guard for several years; as was my grandfather. My nephew works in a sex offender facility in New England. Suffice it to say that your cloak-and-dagger claims of threats are all dino-poop.

You're the expert in poop, that's certain. So then, you wish to tell me that your relatives never had a stabbing in their facility?

oh, it happened. But to guards - you know, employees who actually put their lives on the line. Just not to the prison librarian. And none of them ever went around claiming that a pseudonym protected them from a stabbing.

How quickly were they fired from their positions for lack of observational skills and lack of control of the inmate population?

My family distinguished themselves as prison guards. That's why I can state with authority that your claims about being in jeopardy as the prison librarian are bullpuckey.

Moreover, it's no problem at all for any of them to get someones name/phone number / whatever, if they really want to - most cons have contacts on the outside that can arrange whatever they need; info, drugs, whatever. Your feeble protestations are nothing more than a rationalization for using a pseudonym.

Your personal fantasies are your own. By the way: want to go over one more time the contradictory rationale why you use a pseudonym?

Go ahead and spread that delusion. I have seen about three different Skeptical commentaries on the subject, all of them partly wrong and most of them clearly derived from FTill's cuckoo-clock manifestations of intellect.

On the contrary. They're quite accurate.

As for personal fantasies, perhaps you'd like to visit a prison and explain to these nice deluded folks how all those homemade weapons are just "personal fantasies" on their part, and how the inmates really just use those to open letters.

Bubba was your personal fantasy.

But since you have so much time on your hands, I have a better idea; why don't you tell us how being a prison librarian is real blood-and-guts occupation? Oooh, might have to issue an overdue notice! That's REALLY living on the edge! Might have to decide NOT to renew Popular Mechanics! Taking a risk there, Robby!

At the same time be sure and tell them how deluded they are to say things like, These brave men and women risk their very lives every day to protect and serve the citizens of their communities. Bunch of crybabies, huh!

The guards? No. they earn their pay and serve honorably.

But let's also get one thing straight: there's a far, far difference between being a prison guard, and being a prison librarian. They protect and serve.

On the other hand, you protected no one, and only served up magazine subscriptions - and occasional apologetics nonsense.

So don't try to group yourself in with these honorable people, when you were barely the equivalent of "chief cook and bottle washer".

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "I know prison guards. Prison guards are friends of mine. And let me tell you - you're no prison guard". Your attempts to borrow their mantle of honor and service and wrap yourself in it are kinda pathetic.
:bonk:

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 03:21 PM

Untrue. But don't let the truth slow you down; you're on a roll, baby!

Rolling over you flat indeed, little Hobbit.

No, just making me roll on the floor with laughter. Please continue! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"Public" wasn't the only criterion. Perhaps you should take remedial reading.

Perhaps you should actually explain why websites remain unsuitable forums rather than dodging the question A true disciple of his father, FTill.

I didn't dodge the question, and I didn't say they were unsuitable. I said they weren't the only criterion. And none of this explains why you chickened out on accepting the invitation to debate with Till.

Yessir, maw, we needs to get some remedial readin' 'n' writin' fer our boy, RT!

Examples include several responses from members of the Infidels, who responded to your statements.

That was very specific! I congratulate you.

Yep.

Only to have you go back and edit your responses, and then pretend that you hadn't changed your position.

Once again we ask: examples.

You did this on several occasions. For example, re-writing your position during exchanges with Lowder, on whether ETDAV is truly an apologetic. You also did this with James Still.

And then, of course, there's the selective quotation of your opponent - leaving out critical parts of their responses, so as to make them an easier strawman for you to knock down.

Specific examples seem to have eluded you yet again.

Till's articles include several such examples. So do Lowder's.

And finally, the refusal to link to the opponent's original argument, so that your audience has the benefit of full disclosure of both viewpoints, without editorial tinkering on your part.

Yes, I am sorry, Skeptics are too dumb to use search engines.

Skeptics are quite smart. The point here is that you are quite dishonest and unprofessional, by failing to include the link. That's what professional debaters will do; for example, William Lane Craig.

But, perhaps, the problem here is that you are neither professional, nor quite in the same league as these other more refined and serious scholars. Tsk, tsk. Can't be the "towering intellect" you posture to be, without resorting to cheating.

That should make your internet audience wonder about just how airtight your arguments are.....?? I mean, if you don't have the cojones to let your audience see both sides and make up their own minds.....or perhaps you'd like to accuse your fundie audience of being too stupid to use search engines now?

Of course you have yet to provide an actual example of such tinkering, so the point is moot. Cough it up, Polly. Let's go.

Till and Lowder both provide examples.

By the way: how long are you going to duck/dodge/evade/run/backpedal, before accepting Till's invitation to a debate?

Of course, you've failed to take up the Infidels challenge either - a debate on the Infidels website. You've got the "backpedal ballet" down to an art

Is there a challenge?

Oh, yes. In fact, I'm formally empowered by Infidels to propose a joint venture with Theologyweb.com to sponsor a joint debate. Topic to be decided by mutual agreement. I've already cleared this with the moderators, and there's even a space set up for it on Infidels.

Oh well, too bad. For reasons of wishing to support this venture,

Ah, yes....here it comes, folks....the weaseling, the excuses.....the rationalizations for basic ego-driven fear.

Kinda like the rationalization for using a pseudonym, ya know? :rofl:

TWeb is my home for such affairs and anyone can come here as easily as you did.

The stench of cowardice comes across even via the internet - amazing, isn't it?

jpholding

March 4th 2003, 04:02 PM

JP in an act of fairness all around between you two, I have deleted your post for your remark about his family. Do not make assertions about each others families. If it happens again there will be stronger measures taken.

In Christ,
Blake

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 11:43 PM

I think you mean assocational dysfunctionality, if the rest of your posting is any indication.

Aw, he's jealous of my creative abilities!

Uh, yeah. I'm sure that's it. :ahem:
We all wanna grow up to be as anal and petty as you.

As if there ever was any real threat in the first place.

Well, then, where is your name, address, and phone number for us to distribute to all the inmates?

If they want it, they can get it - I can't really stop them. And considering that a lot of mass-marketing, credit offers, direct mailing, etc. is already subcontracted out to the penal system, they probably already have all that information, as well as my credit report. Such is life.

What you did, however, was to

* work among these convicts all day long;
* under your REAL name - not the pompous pseudonym; and then
* claim that you need the pseudonym for protection;
* when the inmates already know your real name, and could use that fact to find out everything else they needed about you.

Your real name, plus the fact that you live in Florida, are about all that anyone needs to know to gather the address and phone number.

You see, that's why your rationalization for the pseudonym doesn't hold water. Adopting a pseudonym offers zero practical resistance to anyone who truly wanted to get back at you.

Considering the fact that you would have been employed under your REAL name, and not your pompous pseudonym, the prison population already has access to this piece of critical information that you so desperately try to hide.

Saurerbraten, let's say a member of that population -- like one of the three specifically who said they wanted to kill me when they got out

Ah, yes. Now *** spins the yarn of his "Indiana Jones"-like career as a COMBAT PRISON LIBRARIAN!!! "Wait'll I zap 'em
with my secret Dewey decimal decoder ring!"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I don't believe for a minute that anyone seriously threatened you, ****. As with the rest of your postings, this is more than likely just another example of you blowing something way out of proportion. I"ll bet that when you stubbed your toe as a kid, you inflated the problem and claimed you broke your foot, because you figured that would get you more sympathy. Same principle in action here.

-- wanted to find me. How would they do that? Let's see, I erased my record from the white pages, that's step 1. Step 2 -- oh dear, they can use search engines, but Skeptics can't. Now then. They find me writing all of that stuff...they use WHOIS
to get my address...ah.

Uh, wrong. In so many ways. Finding you out only requires your name, and the state you live in. Everything else is a piece of cake. Before my father become a prison guard, he worked in the USAF and as a deputy sheriff. He had to do it on numerous occasions, and this was before the advent of the internet. I'm telling you - it's easy to find out someone's name and address. Your rationalization for your pseudonym is threadbare and lame.

Look at this way - skeptics have found out all this stuff about you and your "exciting career in combat prison librarianship" just by surfing the net. Plug "RT" into google.com - you'll get almost 300 hits. If half of those are false hits, that still leaves over 100 valid hits, where you've left your smelly little trail all over the internet.

And, of course, your ratinalization for using a pseudonym is further refuted by the fact that you've TOLD PEOPLE YOUR NAME.
Sheesh. If you're that terrified (ooooh) and scared (aaaahhh) of these murderous ex-cons who are going to slice you up because you charged them a late fee on a magazine, then how come you're stupid enough to broadcast your own name to the
world? On multiple occasions? :dufus: :dufus:

***: the ego that would not be denied.

Admin note: Edited to remove references to JP's real name.

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 11:46 PM

Multi-dimensional thinking, what a wonderful thing. Try it. You'll like it.

In your case, "multi-delusional" is more appropriate.

I suspect that the real issue here is that your ego decided that someone of your "towering intellect" (ahem) should write under a pseudonym, since ALL great authors (ahem) did so.

Your suspicion is a projection of your own choice of a namesake.

On the contary - my suspicion is getting too close to the truth, so you're whining and crying like a brat with a dirty diaper.

What's in that diaper, you ask? Why, it's Tektonics!

There never was any prison danger, especially consider that Lake Correctional Institute (where you worked) has this description:

This facility was originally established as a migrant labor camp, but more recently housed a bait farm and beverage distribution warehouse. In 1973 it was converted to house adult male inmates. It is designated to accept minimum, medium, close custody and all medical grade inmates. Lake C. I. provides academic, vocational and self- betterment programs.

Now Sauron, are you really dumb enough to think that the FL DC website is going to include stuff in such descriptions like:

1) Number of inmates and/or staff assaulted or killed?

This is not a maximum security facility; in fact, it has community and minimum custody inmates. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. Specious half-whispers about alleged events don't bolster your position.

'2) Number of violent offenders and their crimes?

Actually, it does - here you can browse the inmates:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/list.asp?dataaction=GetInst&facility=312

And you can see each inmate, where they're located, and what their crimes are. How about a relevant example?

Here's a Mr. James Abbott, who worked at Lake CI with you, before you got laid off:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=8755501

And he's incarcerated at Lake CI for:
12/15/1993 2ND DEG.MURD,DANGEROUS ACT 03/22/1994 LEE 9302892 30Y 0M 0D
12/15/1993 ROBBERY W/FIREARM OR D/WEAPON 03/22/1994 LEE 9302893 30Y 0M 0D
12/15/1993 BURGUNOCCSTRUC/CV OR ATT. 03/22/1994 LEE 9302893 5Y 0M 0D
12/15/1993 AGG BATTERY/W/DEADLY WEAPON 03/22/1994 LEE 9302893 5Y 0M 0D

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the FL DC website contains, before trying to discuss it, eh? :rofl:

3) Extra descriptions of the language, threatening behavior, and activities of inmates, such as making and consuming illegal alcoholic beverages, making shanks out of toliet paper, etc?

Why should the DF website list that? It's common knowledge that it goes on. What you're asking us to believe, however, is that a prison librarian was in "grave and mortal" danger, while courageously doing his duties filing books away and stamping due dates on library cards.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Boy, I bet you're all the rage at cocktail parties, aintcha? Regaling the guests with stories of how you "barely escaped with your life" when you tried shushing Bubba in the library, huh? BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It's also missing that Lake CI is, and has been for some time, a facility specially set aside for the housing of Grade 3 "psych" inmates who require constant medication in order not to "go off".

1. That information is *not* missing from Lake CI's description - again, read before responding; and
2. Perhaps they thought placing you there would give these wacko inmates someone to share their delusions with.

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 11:51 PM

Word up, coward:

Yeah right.

Says the man who continues to run from debating Farrell Till, or the Infidels.

You've never been behind a gate.

Wrong.

You can't speak worth a squat on this subject.

Also wrong - growing up in a law enforcement family gives me substantial background from which to speak. You see, my sources here are real prison guards, not tall tales from pseudo-intellectual librarians inflating their credentials.

And I wonder, did those relatives of yours work at a county, state, or federal facility?

State.

If you define "purposes" as stroking ego.

Nice try. More like "striking" them. As is happening now.

:eek:
You're flagellating your own ego? Whatever for, ***?

oh, it happened. But to guards - you know, employees who actually put their lives on the line. Just not to the prison librarian.

Your reasoning here even if valid reminds me of the city telling people that you can't put a traffic signal...blah blah blah

*Sigh*

You never could stay on point, without one of your lame attempts at analogy. :ahem:

And none of them ever went around claiming that a pseudonym protected them from a stabbing.

Did any of them take any measures to conceal their contact information at all? Hmmm?

That's different. They served as guards. You were nothing more than a librarian. Comparing apples and oranges. Or, in your case, it's comparing apples and peas-who-claim-to-be-watermelons.

Besides, it wouldn't have done any good for my family members to try and hide the information - the information is easily discoverable. For example, we didn't have an unlisted phone number growing up. And everyone knew which town we lived in. Besides, their attitude was more like "Wanna mess with me, con? Go ahead and come looking for me. See what you get." 99% of the convicts aren't willing to step up and take their chances with an armed prison guard, esp. off duty.

My family distinguished themselves as prison guards. That's why I can state with authority that your claims about being in jeopardy as the prison librarian are bullpuckey.

You can't state your own name with authority. Let's have specifics, Saurhead.

Not necessary. Given your personal pettiness, you're more of a threat than any prisoner would be. That alone is more than sufficient reason not to give you any info, ***-poo.

Since we're delivering personal accusations,

I think your relatives were all fired for helping inmates escape.

Inflammatory and unsubstantiated comments about JP's past job history are deleted.

Moreover, it's no problem at all for any of them to get someones name/phone number / whatever, if they really want to - most cons have contacts on the outside that can arrange whatever they need; info, drugs, whatever. Your feeble protestations are nothing more than a rationalization for using a pseudonym.

I see. So that means I should make it as easy for them as possible. Gotcha.

1. You may as well, since

1. everyone else seems to be able to find the info with zero effort and in under 30 seconds;
2. you keep telling everyone your real name anyhow;
3. you aren't consistent in using the pseudonym in the other areas of your life - credit card, bank accounts, etc. I mean, if you want to hide from these terrible, nasty, vicious convicts, it ain't gonna help much if only one part of your life (such as it is) gets covered by your pseudonym.

On the contrary. They're quite accurate.

Not accurate enough, apparently, for you to post here and defend.

Quite accurate - just not giving you information to pester and annoy innocent family members with.

Admin note: edited to remove references to JP's real name.

Sauron

March 4th 2003, 11:55 PM

Sauron,
I have deleted your post do to unnecessary insults. Do it again and there will be stricter measures.

Mr Stick71

March 5th 2003, 12:38 AM

Mr. Stick,

You have also been deleted because of nonsense such as that of Sauron.

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 12:44 AM

03-04-2003 @ 01:59 AM
Sauron:

Untrue. But don't let the truth slow you down; you're on a roll, baby!

"Public" wasn't the only criterion. Perhaps you should take remedial reading.

Examples include several responses from members of the Infidels, who responded to your statements. Only to have you go back and edit your responses, and then pretend that you hadn't changed your position.

And then, of course, there's the selective quotation of your opponent - leaving out critical parts of their responses, so as to make them an easier strawman for you to knock down.

And finally, the refusal to link to the opponent's original argument, so that your audience has the benefit of full disclosure of both viewpoints, without editorial tinkering on your part.

What - you didn't think we all noticed? You're not very good at covering your tracks - except with slime, that is.

Of course, you've failed to take up the Infidels challenge either - a debate on the Infidels website. You've got the "backpedal ballet" down to a fine art, Rob.

Sauron,

First of all, if you are going to make assertions like this you must show where Holding has been dishonest. One more thing Sauron if you do not stop making assertions with out evidence I am going to have to take higher measures. If you want to make assertions about ANYONE on this board I ask that you simply back it up!

In Christ,
Blake

Snowball

March 5th 2003, 12:56 AM

03-04-2003 @ 10:55 PM
Sauron:
I got those from your mother last night.

JP's satire is comical -- what you display here is a lack of class.

1. Yes, you did.
2. Names are sufficient.

Can you please supply specifics? I'm really, really interested.

So if you have the nerve, come debate us. I can't guarantee you'll be debating little ol' me; it depends upon the topic of discussion chosen and who is 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice to represent the Infidel point of view.

May I ask why the debate can't take place here? Is there something about this forum that you feel it wouldn't be fair? If JP is doing the things you are accusing him of, wouldn't it be apparent in this forum?

You've been invited to debate Till and Infidels. You turned both down, and in other debates you've been both dishonest and unprofessional. Never mind little ol me for a moment - given your past and your pedigree, why would *anyone* want to debate you?

Yet many people DO want to debate him, Till included. Why do you think Till (and you, conversely) are so obsessed with him?

Here's the real reason you don't want to debate: under any structured debate format such as with Till or on Infidels, you'd be in deep doo-doo. You realize that your only real stock-in-trade, reams and reams of tirade and bluster, would not be tolerated. Disarmed of your only real weapon, you would fall flat on your face. That, plus the fact that you would not be allowed to:

* misquote,
* edit your responses, or
* fail to provide full disclosure of your opponent's view

If any of this things were actually happening, it would be apparent in this forum. It would be impossible to misquote, editing a response is only available to the original poster for 24 hours, and obviously his opponent would be responsible for disclosing their full view. I'm also curious as to how JP can possibly be misquoting or not presenting his opponents full views when all you have to do is go to the link provided and read Till's own words. Check it out here: http://www.tektonics.org/tilldebate.html

Till offered a real-time debate. You chickened out.

Actually, if you knew JP at all (which apparently you don't), you'd know exactly why he won't debate Till real-time, as the reasons are posted all over his web site.

I'd really like to see you and JP debate each other. If you feel he is so unworthy an opponent you should be jumping at the chance. Again, all of your accusations against him would be seen easily in this forum (yet another reason you should be jumping at the chance), should you choose to accept his challenge.:yipee:

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 01:07 AM

03-05-2003 @ 04:44 AM
Blake Reas:

Sauron,

First of all, if you are going to make assertions like this you must show where Holding has been dishonest. One more thing Sauron if you do not stop making assertions with out evidence I am going to have to take higher measures. If you want to make assertions about ANYONE on this board I ask that you simply back it up!

In Christ,
Blake Also, guys it would be helpfu if the conversation had more substance than just exchaning high satircal comments..

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 01:36 AM

The thread has gotten so far off the beaten path that I am sick of it. This is the Science forum either discuss science or end the coversation. I have a better idea I would like to play the part of Don King and set up a Debate between you two in the GYM!

Also wrong - growing up in a law enforcement family gives me substantial background from which to speak. You see, my sources here are real prison guards, not tall tales from pseudo-intellectual librarians inflating their credentials.

You guys feel free to back up these types of assertions in a real debate?

In Christ,
Blake

:argh:

Dee Dee Warren

March 5th 2003, 01:37 AM

Attention everyone... comments about a person's mother is crossing the line, and will not be tolerated. I ask everyone to refrain from making unsubstantiated comments, serious or not, about another member's mother or other family members. Additionally revealing unproven allegations about another member's past job history is also unacceptable. While we all appreciate satire and good jousting, this thread is taking a turn for the worse, and cannot continue in this direction. I request all participants to step back and take a deep breath. Also remember this is the science forum, and this conversation is going way afield from that subject. I thank you all for your cooperation.

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:22 AM

03-04-2003 @ 09:37 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

[b]Attention everyone... comments about a person's mother is crossing the line, and will not be tolerated. I ask everyone to refrain from making unsubstantiated comments, serious or not, about another member's mother or other family members. Additionally revealing unproven allegations about another member's past job history is also unacceptable.

Does this include flinging accusations about past job history of family members?

Just wanna make sure, while we're busy setting rules here, that nothing gets overlooked. In fairness, you know. The LORD hates an unjust weight, etc.

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:24 AM

[QUOTE]03-04-2003 @ 09:36 PM
Blake Reas:

So just curious, Blake. JPH posted an unsubstantiated comment about my relatives who worked in prison. Here it is:

Since we're delivering personal accusations,

I think your relatives were all fired for helping inmates escape.

You failed to delete that.

Why? Playing favorites, as I suspected would happen?

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 02:26 AM

03-05-2003 @ 06:22 AM
Sauron:

Does this include flinging accusations about past job history of family members?

Just wanna make sure, while we're busy setting rules here, that nothing gets overlooked. In fairness, you know. The LORD hates an unjust weight, etc.

No we are not busy setting rules! If you would have read the rules before you started posting you would know. Yes, it does include things about JP's personal life!

DeeDee if you have anything to add go ahead.

Are you making accusations that we have judged you unfairly? If so please tell us so we can clear it up. Thanks.

In Christ,
Blake

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:27 AM

03-04-2003 @ 08:44 PM
Blake Reas:

Sauron,

First of all, if you are going to make assertions like this you must show where Holding has been dishonest.

It's documented on Till's site.

One more thing Sauron if you do not stop making assertions with out evidence

I haven't done that. You just choose to believe your buddy JPH instead of examining the evidence.

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 02:29 AM

03-05-2003 @ 06:24 AM
Sauron:

[QUOTE]03-04-2003 @ 09:36 PM
Blake Reas:

So just curious, Blake. ******* posted an unsubstantiated comment about my relatives who worked in prison. Here it is:

Since we're delivering personal accusations,

I think your relatives were all fired for helping inmates escape.

You failed to delete that.

Sauron, Sorry that I missed that. I will delete it know! Also I would ask that you please stop using his name.

In Christ,
Blake
Why? Playing favorites, as I suspected would happen?

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:29 AM

03-04-2003 @ 10:26 PM
Blake Reas:

Are you making accusations that we have judged you unfairly? If so please tell us so we can clear it up. Thanks.

You betcha. JPH and I have both engaged in exactly the same thing.

Yet you edited only MY posts.

"The LORD despises an unjust weight."

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:31 AM

03-04-2003 @ 10:29 PM
Blake Reas:

Blake, I'll stop referring to him except by his pseudonym, in honest appreciation of your act of fairness.

I hope I can count on you to continue to judge with total objectivity and "showing favor to no man".

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:36 AM

03-04-2003 @ 10:29 PM
Blake Reas:

Blake, I'm waiting.

Post 27548.

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 02:39 AM

Sauron would you please give me the post number? I am having trouble finding it. I am not trying to be unfair to you. What you said did stick out a little more. I will tell JP the same thing I told you. Please just cooperate here.

In Christ,
Blake

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 02:43 AM

Case closed.:cheers:

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 03:04 AM

03-04-2003 @ 08:56 PM
Snowball:

JP's satire is comical

No, it's unprofessional, derogatory and childish. Do you see Glenn Miller engaged in that kind of behavior? William Lane Craig? No. They let their arguments speak for themselves. You don't have to expend effort to wade through the nonsense and hunt for the points of the person's comment.

JPH is interested only in "scoring points" on the great, invisible comedy scoreboard.

-- what you display here is a lack of class.

Nonsense. I only give back what gets tossed at me.

May I ask why the debate can't take place here? Is there something about this forum that you feel it wouldn't be fair? If JP is doing the things you are accusing him of, wouldn't it be apparent in this forum?

I suspect it's because II has a more structured format than what is permitted here. For example, his pettiness and ad hominems would not be tolerated at II. And, he would not be able to engage in this kind of behavior:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/4/024jph.html

Yet many people DO want to debate him, Till included. Why do you think Till (and you, conversely) are so obsessed with him?

The same reason anyone wants to pin down a card shark, embarass a telemarketer, or put a credit card scammer out of business, etc. - doing the world a public service. :-)

I'm also curious as to how JP can possibly be misquoting or not presenting his opponents full views when all you have to do is go to the link provided and read Till's own words. Check it out here: http://www.tektonics.org/tilldebate.html

Yes, and what do we find there?

Before I proceed to rebut his counter arguments, I must first take the time to point out that ****** has already reneged on his promise to provide a link to my article that he was replying to. All that he did was to note above that the article appeared in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991, but that is hardly a link that would enable his readers to click and read exactly what I had said. I sent an e-mail message to ****** and asked where his link was, and he wrote back to say that he had put it in another article on his site, so we can already see the game ****** is playing. By putting a link to my original article somewhere else besides in what is supposed to be his reply, he increases the chances that some of his readers will see only his article and never notice the link to mine.

And again:

Admittedly, this was part of an introductory paragraph to my article, but why would he want to leave it out? Why not let the readers see it and determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration? I suppose if we were engaged in an oral debate that was being recorded on audio tapes, ****** would think it appropriate to bleep out my comments that he thought were superfluous. My point is that a debate is a debate, and audiences who read it should be entitled to see everything that both parties say. The problem with ******'s selective quoting on his private web site is that he sets himself up as judge and jury of what his readers should and should not see. In my opinion, the “replies” that he has written to some of my articles have gutted arguments and counterarguments by cutting out material and justifying it on the grounds that it was “90% fluff.” When a written debate is published in its entirety, however, neither participant can complain of unfair treatment, so I'll leave it to readers to decide which is the better policy.

I suggest you go to Till's site, for more specifics. I watched JPH surreptitiously change his position on another issue ("Is ETDAV a Strong Apologetic"). Here's what happened:

1. JPH received the response from Infidels.

2. Then, before he made his counter-response, guess what? He changed his original posting, in an effort to make the Infidel reponse look as if it missed the point.

3. Which he then trumpeted in his counter-response as another "stupid skeptic" mistake.

However, the Infidel response did not miss the point; JPH simply changed his point, so that the response no longer addressed it. Sound like an honest apologetic maneuver to you?

Actually, if you knew JP at all (which apparently you don't), you'd know exactly why he won't debate Till real-time, as the reasons are posted all over his web site.

I've seen his reasons. They're not believable.

I'd really like to see you and JP debate each other. If you feel he is so unworthy an opponent you should be jumping at the chance. Again, all of your accusations against him would be seen easily in this forum (yet another reason you should be jumping at the chance), should you choose to accept his challenge.:yipee:

JPH is invited over to Infidels. The only question is whether or not he has the cojones to accept. As I said, Infidels is proposing a joint debate - a cooperative effort. We will grant you all honorary "skeptic status" and you can come visit.

Blake Reas

March 5th 2003, 03:11 AM

A Joint debate does not sound bad! I would support it, you will have to talk to Yxboom and DeeDee to find out exactly what they would do to help! Sounds interesting keep me posted! I like a good debate

In Christ,
Blake

Sauron

March 5th 2003, 03:17 AM

03-04-2003 @ 10:52 PM
Blake Reas:

If you provide evidence you will not have to hear from me again.

In Christ,
Blake

Blake, I hope the two quotations from Till illustrate what I have been talking about (post 27929).

And I'm looking forward to discussing archaeology with you, after I get back from traveling (next Tuesday).

Cheers.

Dee Dee Warren

March 5th 2003, 07:26 AM

Dear Sauron:

My public comments mentioned all unnecessary and potentially inflammatory comments about other's family members no matter who said them. JP's initial comments of which you complained were included in that comment not just yours. They were not deleted because it was not at that point that the conversation went over the line (though it was leading there) which did not happen until you started making explicit references to his mother. If you perceive any other instances of what you believe is bias or unequal treatment please bring such to my attention immediately. I believe that Blake has gone out of his way to treat this situation equitably and you have indicated your satisfaction.

Now onto to other things... I see no purpose in a "joint" debate hosting as this is a public forum and anyone can participate who chooses to. That is in fact the whole purpose of TheologyWeb, ie to have open debate and discussion. We do not promote directly or indirectly any other discussion site or forum (other than providing links if source material is taken from there - or promoting other featurs of a discussion site, such as an articles database etc) as that would be counterproductive to us..... obviously we want people to participate here at TheologyWeb. Splitting attention without purpose does not serve the best interests of this site or our combined members. The Infidels are also free to quote or post any material that is found here on their own site as I understand two errancy lists will be doing with my debate with Till. In short, there is no purpose to it. You have alluded to "dffering" rules which again would make managing a "joint" debate unmanageable and without purpose. JP or other members are available here for you to debate. You have been granted the same freedoms, and have fully taken advantage of them in your style of posting. You have only been censored when you went over the line, and you both have been asked to refrain from the family member bit and you have conceded fairness in this situation. I personally see this joint debate business as a posturing tactic, and I am not going to play a party to it.

Lastly on this, TheologyWeb and Tekton have a mutually beneficial relationship in that I make no attempts to hide that I am a personal friend of JP and a supporter of his ministry, thus a link to Tekton is provided on our home page, and Tekton will be included with others in a Featured Ministry section that we are planning on implementing. In return Tekton has also linked to us at his site. While we are not a partner or subministry of Tekton in any way, shape, or form, nor are we beholden to extend special favors or treatment, TheologyWeb is pleased to be able to host an open forum that JP can utilize to have public debates in one location with full participation from anyone, sceptic, Christian or otherwise. Any member of the Infidels is ALSO free to use this forum in that manner also now or in the future, and several already have, and have taken advantage of the opportunity to link to their own pages and works without censorship.

Now carry on.... and remember this is the Science section, and I notice that the thread is still continuing on almost any conversation but science. If this is something that you wish to continue, I can split the thread so that the other stuff can be a separate conversation. Let me know.

Pilgrim

March 5th 2003, 08:41 AM

Oops, Balke, you're doing a fine job here. I'll go play elsewhere! ;)

jpholding

March 5th 2003, 01:27 PM

To Saurkraut:

We all wanna grow up to be as anal and petty as you.

You will have to become a more advanced life form at some point. :smile: In deference to moderator wishes the remainder of this shall be directed only to what I deem as necessary defense

If they want it, they can get it - I can't really stop them

Evasion and inconsistency. If this is so then there should not be a moment's hesitation in providing this information at once. By the (ahem, cough, hack) logic thus far presented, since they can "get it anyway" it is pointless to close other doors to them. Your name, address, and phone for the nice men in blue, please.

Ah, yes. Now *** spins the yarn of his

Interesting, is it not: My detailed personal experience is a spun "yarn"; it is "blown out of proportion"; etc. But when we ask for specific details of persons allegedly wronged by my editing practices, "names are enough." When we ask for details of Saurpuss' alleged family background in corrections, it is "not necessary".

Let the hypocsrisy, and the silence associated with it, speak for itself.

Uh, wrong. In so many ways

Ah. And of course prison inmates have all the knowledge acessible to persons working in the USAF and as deputy sheriffs. :duh: If it's so easy, tell us how to do it.

Look at this way - skeptics have found out all this stuff about you and your "exciting career in combat prison librarianship" just by surfing the net.

Thanks to, er, who is my name all over the place? One J. Farrell Till, who breached the trust given him to satiate his own fantasies and to counteract his inability to refute my work on an argumentative level.

And, of course, your ratinalization for using a pseudonym is further refuted by the fact that you've TOLD PEOPLE YOUR NAME.

Er, people who are not inmates. :dizzy spell:

This is not a maximum security facility

Ah, were you as well-tutored as you claim to be, you'd grasp that custody level is not always relevant. Meanwhile we are apparently to accept "specious quarter-whispers" about alleged editing offenses on...how much more validation?

And you can see each inmate, where they're located, and what their crimes are. How about a relevant example?

Relevant? Picked the first in alphabetical order, I see; indeed a remarkably representative sample of the 6000-7000 inmates who passed through Lake CI during my 5 years there. Oh, and note the lie spread (via FTill's Amighty Mouth) about being "laid off". But as for Mr Abbott for that matter -- Oh. 2nd degree murder? Use of firearms? Aggravated battery? I'll be glad to give him your name, address and phone number. What is it?

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the FL DC website contains, before trying to discuss it, eh?

Perhaps you like associating with this type of person, who knows. Meanwhile how about a slightly larger and more relevant sample?

RONALD E TERRY 10/02/1990 TRESPASS PROPERTY ARMED 05/11/1992 PALM BEACH 9013336 10Y 0M 0D 10/02/1990 KIDNAP;COMM.OR FAC.FELONY 05/11/1992 PALM BEACH 9013336 SENTENCED TO LIFE 10/02/1990 AGG BATTERY/W/DEADLY WEAPON 05/11/1992 PALM BEACH 9013336 30Y 0M 0D 10/02/1990 AGG BATTERY/W/DEADLY WEAPON 05/11/1992 PALM BEACH 9013336 30Y 0M 0D

This fine gentleman worked for me for four years. Want to invite him to your house? He's not dangerous.

LAUDERMILK, GERALD R 03/07/1991 1ST DG MUR/PREMED. OR ATT. 08/08/1992 ST. LUCIE 9100718 SENTENCED TO LIFE 03/07/1991 ROBBERY W/FIREARM OR D/WEAPON 08/08/1992 ST. LUCIE 9100718 SENTENCED TO LIFE 04/08/1991 WITNESS ACCEPTS BRIBES 08/08/1992 ST. LUCIE 9100718 5Y 0M 0D

Worked for me 2 years. Oh! Lucky you, he and Ronald are lifers, but if the parole board ever gets happy, who knows. Want some more? If you think 1 was enough, 2 should be over the top.

Also would like to know -- still -- why you think FL DC's website tells people to be careful about Inmate Penpals. Maybe it's because of all those credit card offers they send.

. That information is *not* missing from Lake CI's description - again, read before responding

Try reporting honestly. It was missing from YOUR layout of the data. :lol:

You never could stay on point, without one of your lame attempts at analogy.

Notice what's missing: The analysis explaining WHY and HOW it is "lame". As usual we're short on details, long on hot air.

That's different. They served as guards. You were nothing more than a librarian. Comparing apples and oranges.

Still waiting for an explanation as to WHY and HOW. This is the old "you can't compare yourself to Dan Barker because he's bigger than you" shazam.

Besides, their attitude was more like "Wanna mess with me, con?

Well, then, pass us that name, address, and phone number, and that of any women or children in your family, and we will be on our way.

3. you aren't consistent in using the pseudonym in the other areas of your life - credit card, bank accounts, etc.

Ah. Forgive me, I forgot that listings of bank accounts, credit card accounts, etc. were being freely distributed in prisons.

Do you see Glenn Miller engaged in that kind of behavior? William Lane Craig?

G. K. Chesteron? Tertullian? Alexander Pope? Jonathan Swift? Why no, but the oxen they gored did moo quite loudly.

I suspect it's because II has a more structured format than what is permitted here.

The devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked. :rofl:

Yes, and what do we find there?

Oh yes. Did you ask FTill's permission before trying to think for yourself? http://www.tektonics.org/tillstink.html -- a case of FTill's bad memory in action, yet again.

I watched JPH surreptitiously change his position on another issue ("Is ETDAV a Strong Apologetic

What tremendous detail. Not so much as a quote of the allegedly changed lines. But you know, we can't believe a word you say anyway -- why? Well, as you have pointed out:

* the unreliability of eyewitness testimony (You were an eyewitness to this? Big deal!);
*the contradiction between objective testing of eyewitness claims, and the claims themselves, in many cases )since you provide no tangible evidence, we can't even test it);
* the lack of rigorous examination of such claims by the alleged eyewitness (you dodge questions about this with non-specifics);
* the bias of the original witness and/or bias of those who transmitted the account (you're as biased as they come)
* the ambiguity of the descriptions (your descriptions are vague to the point of criminal behavior)

By your own standards, then, any testimony you provide gets an automatic home in the dustbin. In any event, you have failed to prove:

1) That any such change was indeed made -- as an aside, at the time of the said article, I was not my own webmaster, so your accusation implies direct collusion by another person as well, whose name you are also slandering in the process. Where are your copies of the article in question, before and after?
2) That such change was made without announcement -- where are your copies of the Updates page for the site in question?
3) That any such change was indeed something effective (i.e., not changes to spelling, typos, grammar, etc.).

JPH is invited over to Infidels.

Ah, so your own rejection of a debate = lack of cojones. Thank you. I see the mods have their own answer to this, but as far as I can see, nothing keeps you from recopying all exchanges to an iidb forum. Or it may be that same disease that keeps you from using search engines. Meanwhile: Saurcream's record speaks well for itself.

Snowball

March 5th 2003, 05:37 PM

03-05-2003 @ 02:04 AM
Sauron:

No, it's unprofessional, derogatory and childish. Do you see Glenn Miller engaged in that kind of behavior? William Lane Craig? No. They let their arguments speak for themselves. You don't have to expend effort to wade through the nonsense and hunt for the points of the person's comment.

Don't get me wrong -- I love Glenn Miller and William Lane Craig, but JP's stuff is much more FUN to read. He also has this incredible knack for exposing someone's weaknesses without them even realizing it (they usually fall into the trap without suspecting a thing). Again, this is fun stuff!

Nonsense. I only give back what gets tossed at me.

Nonsense! JP's humor doesn't make overt sexual and inappropriate references that paint a disgusting and uncalled for picture in my head.

I suspect it's because II has a more structured format than what is permitted here. For example, his pettiness and ad hominems would not be tolerated at II. And, he would not be able to engage in this kind of behavior:

Do you want to know why JP needs to resort to humor? Because the format usually goes something like this:

1. The skeptic asks his question.
2. JP answers
3. The skeptic, not liking the answer, asks why JP didn't answer the question.
4. JP says he did answer the question.
5. The skeptic complains ad nauseum about how JP doesn't answer his question.
6. JP answers it again.
7. The skeptic complains that JP didn't answer the question.
8. JP resorts to humor -- what is left?

I'm sorry, but I've seen this time and time again (and has been demonstrated a few times here on TWeb). What I've come to realize is that no answer is good enough for a skeptic. They will judge the Bible in their own anachronistic way and they are arrogant enough to assume that they MUST be right. Then they will sit and wonder how no-one else can see it, assuming that the people who don't agree with them must be stupid.

The same reason anyone wants to pin down a card shark, embarass a telemarketer, or put a credit card scammer out of business, etc. - doing the world a public service. :-)

Thanks! Now I understand why JP wastes his time on skeptics like Till.

Yes, and what do we find there?

Before I proceed to rebut his counter arguments, I must first take the time to point out that ****** has already reneged on his promise to provide a link to my article that he was replying to. All that he did was to note above that the article appeared in the first issue of The Skeptical Review in 1991, but that is hardly a link that would enable his readers to click and read exactly what I had said. I sent an e-mail message to ****** and asked where his link was, and he wrote back to say that he had put it in another article on his site, so we can already see the game ****** is playing. By putting a link to my original article somewhere else besides in what is supposed to be his reply, he increases the chances that some of his readers will see only his article and never notice the link to mine.

And again:

Admittedly, this was part of an introductory paragraph to my article, but why would he want to leave it out? Why not let the readers see it and determine for themselves whether it is deserving of consideration? I suppose if we were engaged in an oral debate that was being recorded on audio tapes, ****** would think it appropriate to bleep out my comments that he thought were superfluous. My point is that a debate is a debate, and audiences who read it should be entitled to see everything that both parties say. The problem with ******'s selective quoting on his private web site is that he sets himself up as judge and jury of what his readers should and should not see. In my opinion, the “replies” that he has written to some of my articles have gutted arguments and counterarguments by cutting out material and justifying it on the grounds that it was “90% fluff.” When a written debate is published in its entirety, however, neither participant can complain of unfair treatment, so I'll leave it to readers to decide which is the better policy.

Did you even look at the tekton page I linked to above? Till's articles are linked to, in much the same way most debates are linked to on web pages -- first a link to the opening statement, then a link to the rebuttal, then a link to the opponents rebuttal, etc. Till looks like such a crybaby in this, really! Also, why must JP regurgitate all of Till's argument (and please, you must admit that most of his stuff is just a lot of rambling on incohesively) when all the person would need to do to read the full argument is click on the link! Here's a secret: I didn't even know about Till's site until I linked to it from JP's site.

I suggest you go to Till's site, for more specifics. I watched JPH surreptitiously change his position on another issue ("Is ETDAV a Strong Apologetic"). Here's what happened:

1. JPH received the response from Infidels.

2. Then, before he made his counter-response, guess what? He changed his original posting, in an effort to make the Infidel reponse look as if it missed the point.

3. Which he then trumpeted in his counter-response as another "stupid skeptic" mistake.

However, the Infidel response did not miss the point; JPH simply changed his point, so that the response no longer addressed it. Sound like an honest apologetic maneuver to you?

I've been to Till's site, thank you! I didn't even need the link you gave me, since I had already been there through a link on JP's site. Given the example above, I suppose I'm going to have to take your word for it, since you don't provide what the original article supposedly said, what the skeptic's charge was, or what the change was that JP made. Details, please.

I've seen his reasons. They're not believable.

Really? Why don't you regurgitate his reasons so I know for sure that you've seen them. They are excellent reasons, and your failure to see that leaves me baffled. The only excuse I can think of for you is that you really havn't seen them.

JPH is invited over to Infidels. The only question is whether or not he has the cojones to accept. As I said, Infidels is proposing a joint debate - a cooperative effort. We will grant you all honorary "skeptic status" and you can come visit.

I'm sure it will be more of the same that I mentioned above. In any case, I'll still watch -- kinda like not being able to turn away when about to witness a train wreck.

jpholding

March 5th 2003, 08:07 PM

Oh yes.

I spoke to one of my former workmates today, a teacher at the prison, and he reminded me of something. It seems that guards ("officers" as they prefer to be called here) often have this attitude problem that makes them look down on "civilian" employees. Not all of them. Just the ones who think they're hot enforcers and have dreams of being REAL police officers. Anyway they like to pretend that civvies aren't taking the same risks they do working behind bars. No matter if you're a teacher, classification officer, etc. As far as they're concerned, you're not "really" at the same risk because you're not what they are.

Not that they can ever explain why in a rational manner. It's just that when these sorts wear one of those straw hats, it tends to crush certain vital organs.
:brow:

Leading to such atrocities as the security man who came into my library, sat in front of a computer, hit the screen ON button, and sat and waited...and waited....

And would still be waiting had an office person not been with him to turn on the hard drive. :rofl:

Piebald

March 5th 2003, 10:49 PM

The ironic thing is that skeptics and skeptical organizations will often link to places like WhiteHouse.org and LandoverBaptist.org which uses 'humor' such as:

"Satan Pinches a Loaf and Calls it a Movie: DAREDEVIL"

"We're standing for the truth that Negros can change"

"Something that should clue the world in is the fact that Catholics insist on getting ALL their information about the Bible from old men who like to play with (vulgarity deleted)."

And Infidels.org, for example, bills it as: 'Marvelously and tirelessly maintained, it sells lots of funny stuff'

So why is this kind of satire 'okay' but J.P.'s (which is alot less vitriolic) 'unprofessional' and 'childish'?

Be sure to check out the 'funny stuff' they sell:

jimbo

March 6th 2003, 07:22 AM

Hamster,

So why is this kind of satire 'okay' but J.P.'s (which is alot less vitriolic) 'unprofessional' and 'childish'?

The Landover Baptist site is an obvious parody site which mocks religious extremism--something that richly deserves to be mocked. It makes fun of fundamentalism. "J.P Holding," on the other hand, constantly hurls personal insults and slurs at individuals because they don't share his religious beliefs, and he does this despite the fact that his mission statement (http://www.tektonics.org/mission.html) portrays his "ministry" as being scholarly and high-minded.

Cheers,

Terry

Dee Dee Warren

March 6th 2003, 07:26 AM

03-06-2003 @ 06:22 AM
jimbo:

Hamster,

The Landover Baptist site is an obvious parody site which mocks religious extremism--something that richly deserves to be mocked. It makes fun of fundamentalism.

And this sentence makes sense to you?? Let's reword shall we...

Oh, no, you see the sites that my heros link to are okay because they make fun of people who in my opinion deserve it, and that should settle it.

:rofl:

Yeah right, sure. Whatever you say.

jimbo

March 6th 2003, 07:40 AM

Dee Dee,

Oh, no, you see the sites that my heros link to are okay because they make fun of people who in my opinion deserve it, and that should settle it.

Like I said, the Landover Baptist site makes fun of something rather than someone. It makes fun of fundamentalism. And it doesn't pretend to be anyting other than a parody site. Your hero Mr "Holding," on the other hand, portrays himself as an intellectual and a scholar in his mission statement, yet virtually all of his writings are filled with slurs and schoolyard insults at individuals. That's the problem.

Randolf

Dee Dee Warren

March 6th 2003, 07:44 AM

Really?? And who pray tell are fundamentalists? Do you think by avoiding names, you avoid persons? If I were to say all [insert some racial group] are lazy... do you think I would avoid insulting the members of that group because I did not say Ron Smith is lazy? Are you really that incoherent? Oh, that is my first dumb question of the morning. My bad.

jpholding

March 6th 2003, 09:40 AM

Like I said, the Landover Baptist site makes fun of something rather than someone. It makes fun of fundamentalism.

Oh, Jimbo, you are SO right! I repent at once of all my sins! O victory in Jimbo, my savior... Does anyone know any good words that rhyme with "farts"? Oh, never mind! You are just SO in tune, Jimbo, and I can never thank you enough!

I will IMMEDIATELY change statements like this:

Farrell Till obviously needs Laubach training, if he thinks this means I want him to pay for 90% of my website!

To statements like this:

Institutional Skepticism should obviously offer Laubach training, since it thinks this means I want it to pay for 90% of my website!

Bless you, Jimbo! And I will also IMMEDIATELY write to my local newspaper and DEMAND that they stop drawing those foolish editorial cartoons of George W., Bill Clinton, etc. No! They must instead draw pictures of the Presidency itself wearing nothing but a necktie, being a wimp, etc. How dare they! How dare Jay Leno pick on people, not groups! Bless you for your tremendous insight!

And it doesn't pretend to be anyting other than a parody site.

Oh, you are SO right, Jimbo, and I will also tell the newspapers to stop using editorial cartoons and Dave Barry columns. After all, they pretend to be reporting news! Their statements of purpose say that's what they're out to do! So what's with all that Dave Barry stuff, huh? The whole paper is filled with that! I read it all! I know! Down with variety!

Thank you so much for saving me, Jimbo/Russell/Brooks/Punjab/Lakeesha/Sally! We hope that multiple personality disorder gets better soon, and remember, Jesus wuvs you -- everyone else thinks you're a jerk!

:rofl:

:juggle:

The Laughing Man

March 6th 2003, 11:48 AM

Wow. Jimbo sure painted himself into that corner. Good job, DD and JP. :cheers:

jimbo

March 6th 2003, 02:09 PM

Everyone,

So you agree that it is okay for someone to pretend to be scholarly and high-minded, but to at the same time slur and insult others who hold different opinions? Yes?

Mandy

Captain Ochre

March 6th 2003, 02:17 PM

03-06-2003 @ 06:09 PM
jimbo:

Everyone,

So you agree that it is okay for someone to pretend to be scholary and high-minded, but to at the same time slur and insult others who hold different opinions? Yes?

Mandy

Mando,

Assuming that it's okay for a person to pretend to be scholarly and "high-minded", it's certainly okay to slur and insult unless you assume a priori that insults are not "high-minded" to begin with.
The construction of your question appears to fit the form of the false dilemma.
Better to simplify the question to: Is it ethical to insult another person?
The Tekton website has an excellent article on the challenge/riposte method of discourse. Have you read it?

jimbo

March 6th 2003, 02:40 PM

Captain Ochre,

Yeah, I know how how "Holding" rationalizes his angry attacks on other people by portraying his unrelenting insults and denigration as humour and satire.

I will ask my question again: Do you agree that it is okay for someone to pretend (or claim) to be scholarly and high-minded, but to at the same time slur and insult others who hold different opinions? Yes?

Here is Mr "Holding's" mission statement:

"Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole."

Mandingo

jpholding

March 6th 2003, 03:20 PM

Anyone want to add to my new hymnal I'm composing a whole book of paeans to Jimbo! Here's the latest:

Jimbo, Jimbo, farts for free!
Maestro, Sampler, we love thee!

Yeah, I know how how "Holding" rationalizes his angry attacks on other people by portraying his unrelenting insults and denigration as humour and satire.

Goodness! That was such a simple and straightfoward and specific and well-researched answer to that multi-page article! I'll have to take it down immediately! Jimbo, please tell us, how do we become as detail-oriented and as educated and informed as you are? We're bursting to know where you learned all these wonderful things about Greco-Roman rhetoric, riposte and challenge, and all that neat-o stuff!

Hail Jimbo, Mein Fuhrer! :bow:

I will ask my question again:

Oh, Jimbo! Please help me, I have forgotten -- what does "not mutually exclusive" mean? I seem to have forgotten and I KNOW I can rely on your ever-present and omniscient genius for an assist. Really. We wuv you, Jimbo/Grady/Esther/Fred/Lamont/Woody/Bubba! Hope that personality disorder gets better soon! Have you been to see Oral Roberts? :cir:

Captain Ochre

March 6th 2003, 03:20 PM

03-06-2003 @ 06:40 PM
jimbo:

Captain Ochre,

Yeah, I know how how "Holding" rationalizes his angry attacks on other people by portraying his unrelenting insults and denigration as humour and satire.

The original portion of the article was by our own "Phantaz Sunlyk", not Holding as a matter of fact, and "humour and satire" falls short of the description given by Phantaz, imo.

I will ask my question again: Do you agree that it is okay for someone to pretend (or claim) to be scholarly and high-minded, but to at the same time slur and insult others who hold different opinions? Yes?

Sure. Why would you disagree?

Here is Mr "Holding's" mission statement:

"Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole."

Are you able to suggest how he fails to achieve his purpose?

Here's the bottom line, Mandingobo: If you have no argument to present in support of an assertion that insult is incompatible with scholarly approach to issues, then you are simply leaning on facile insinuation if your goal is to point out an inconsistency on J. P.'s part.
So, at least you never claimed to be scholarly? :wink:

The Laughing Man

March 6th 2003, 05:19 PM

This is silly. Jimbo, are you just attacking JPH's personal style of presenting information because you can't address the information itself? You and Joseph should get together as he took offense to the way I presented info. and didn't address the info. itself.

BTW, what's with this "pretending to be scholarly and high-minded" stuff? If you'd actually pay attention to the information JPH provides, perhaps you'd actually see that he is indeed "scholarly and high-minded." Of course, I know you'd never take issue with skeptics who present their information in a similar manner that JPH does. Such skeptics can be found in atheist forums all over the net.

ABTW, did I miss something or do you have multiple personality disorder? What's with the constantly changing sign-off name? Just curious.

Dee Dee Warren

March 6th 2003, 06:09 PM

03-06-2003 @ 01:09 PM
jimbo:

Everyone,

So you agree that it is okay for someone to pretend to be scholarly and high-minded, but to at the same time slur and insult others who hold different opinions? Yes?

Mandy

Oh Mandy... you came and gave without taking... and now you....

Eeek, sorry, had a Barry Manilow moment. :yipee:

Dee Dee Warren

March 6th 2003, 06:11 PM

03-06-2003 @ 10:48 AM
Jinx72:

Wow. Jimbo sure painted himself into that corner. Good job, DD and JP. :cheers:

Yep, Jimbo got sent to the corner and didn't even get a lolli.

Piebald

March 6th 2003, 08:12 PM

"J.P Holding," on the other hand, constantly hurls personal insults and slurs at individuals because they don't share his religious beliefs

Ha! You think I've never seen Landover Baptist? They make fun of individuals _all_ the time.

And why is it okay to make fun of Christian fundamentalists and not Skeptical 'fundamentalists'? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it? Your excuse that fundamentalists 'deserve' to be made fun of begs the question that the rather unqualified and ridiculous critics of Christianity on the Internet (e.g. Brooks Trubee) don't deserve to be lampooned.

That, Jimbo, is a double standard.

the Landover Baptist site makes fun of something rather than someone.

Reeally?

"St. Patrick's Day: Another excuse for Catholics to get drunk"

Admin note: portion of quoted Landover Baptist material edited for being too inflammatory to a targeted group of people and explicit

And what is this weird distinction between 'people' and 'individuals'? It's okay to write vitriolic slander against groups, as long as it's not individuals?

The Hypocrisy of Skeptics on the web who link to and support satire websites such as Betty Bowers, Landover Baptist, Whitehouse.org, etc. and then slam J.P. for using less vitriolic and less profane satire is quite evident.

Dee Dee Warren

March 6th 2003, 10:55 PM

Dear Hamster:

You will note that I edited out one quote from the Landover site. The fact that it required editing probably proves your point even more eloquently than had it remained; however, please be congizant of the restriction against references of that nature, even if done to prove a polemic point. Thank you.

FYI - the Landover quote that was edited made a slur against all Catholic men and allegedly their likelihood to be pedophiles. And this is what you are defending Jimbo?? Sure about that?

Piebald

March 6th 2003, 11:02 PM

Alrighty, Deedee, sorry about that!

Dee Dee Warren

March 6th 2003, 11:03 PM

Thank you Hamster... :thumb:

The Laughing Man

March 6th 2003, 11:04 PM

So by Jimbo's standards, it's quite acceptable for someone to make fun of people for whatever reason (religion, race, sexual orientation) just as long as you don't specifically name individuals. So he would wholeheartedly support me if I were to make a website viciously mocking atheism or homosexuality, right? As long as I didn't pick individuals out that would be okay, right? Yeah, right! :rofl: Anyone want to buy a bridge?

The Laughing Man

March 6th 2003, 11:06 PM

Oops! Am I making fun of Jimbo? :brow:

wienerdog

March 6th 2003, 11:23 PM

In defense of Jimbo, on this thread he tried not to be vitriolic, at least at first. JP was completely, well, disrespectful towards him. I enjoy JP's style as well, and the points that have been made about the viciousness of anti-Christian websites are totally valid.

I suspect there's a history between Jimbo and JP here of which I know nothing, but I'm not going to let my ignorance prevent me from forcing my viewpoint on others. "Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing. Being a man of action, I can't afford to take that risk." "You're ignorant, but at least you act on it." (Calvin & Hobbes)

markg

March 7th 2003, 04:57 AM

Before joining TheologyWeb, I, like probably many others, spent time on various other Christian groups where discussion of Christianity/ atheism/ evolution/creation etc. etc. was the bread and butter. In almost all of them the standard of discourse was threatened at some stage or another by trolls or other skeptics bent on undermining the forum. In my time I have seen all sorts of mud-slinging, abuse, character assassination, name calling, insults, ad hominems - you name it, it’s out there on the Net in spades. So it doesn’t surprise me to see it emerging here on TheolgyWeb and I suspect that, even if they do not wish to, at some point the moderators are going to have to take firm action and start even banning certain posters, who will otherwise seek to wreck the forum or undermine any attempts at respectful, rational and intelligent discussion of various issues.

Unfortunately - and I must make exception here and take my hat off to the few respectful and fair atheist debaters on the Net such as Kyle Gherkin - the majority of the insults and abuse comes from the atheists and anti-theists. There are very few Christians who descend to this level in their online comments.

Now I personally find JP Holding’s style rather too abrasive and aggressive for my tastes, yet that style is certainly milder than much of the comments that occur on many anti-Christian and atheistic sites. Is Holysmoke.org still operating? I might wish that J P Holding was more temperate in his remarks, but I certainly cannot fault his level of research and scholarship. If his style sometimes makes me cringe the substance that is evident in his writings more than balances the equation. As he himself pointed out in this thread there is no rhyme or reason, no law of the universe, that prevents Christians from using satire, humour, hyperbole, euphemism, pun, innuendo, irony or any other figure of speech or rhetorical devices to make their points - just like their opponents do. In addition to those Christian authors he mentioned who used these stylistic devices I would include Martin Luther whose own devastating literary style made frequent and well-aimed use of all them and more.

What I can say about JP Holding is he knows his opponents only too well. He has their measure, giving as good as he gets. He uses the typical style of many anti-Christian polemicists and turns it back upon them. And, as Sauron and others atheists on TheologyWeb demonstrate, they do not like it. Glenn Miller or William Lane Craig is not JP Holding (as far as I know). Comparing and contrasting them is a red herring, a bit of a holysmokescreen. As I said the substance and scholarship in Holding’s writings outweighs his stylistic lapses. Something I cannot say is true of many of aggressive polemicists on the other side of the fence.

I notice the escalating personal (and irrelevant) personal abuse that is being heaped up by both sides and I support the moderator in taking a stand against it. Guys, come on stop acting like spoilt brats and starting acting like men.

On the use of pseudonyms: this seems to be standard practice on the Net. I note that “Sauron” is a pseudonym just as “J P Holding” is. Any criticism from him of the use of a pseudonym is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. I also note in passing, that Sauron is not the only poster on Theology Web who has revealed Holding’s real name, despite repeated requests by the moderators to refrain from such action. It’s a lousy and low tactic. The incident involving the phonecall to Holding’s wife is particularly disturbing. Someone, again not a Christian, revealed “Robyn Bank’s” real name in one post, another uncalled for action, though Banks, if I remember rightly was one of the first to make public Holding’s identity, so I guess it’s a case of what one sows, one reaps.

As I see it the owners and moderators of Theology Web have made it quite clear that they really do welcome honest and genuine debate and discussion from any quarter and from any philosophical viewpoint, but they have also made it plain that Theology Web is a Christian site, which operates from a foundation of a Christian worldview. Those who come here to attack and criticise - and let’s face it, that is what 99% of the atheists come here to do - must be prepared to abide by the rules of the forum. I personally have a policy of never going to atheist sites in order to cause disruption or dispute; I sometimes peruse them for background and information but I refrain from making negative or derogatory comments to them. I like the idea of a forum being both open enough for any genuine concern to be aired but also safe enough that people will not be attacked personally for their views or beliefs. The ongoing vitriol that has swirled around “JP Holding”, “Robyn Banks” and Farrell Till, among others has gotten pretty low into the gutter, if not the sewer.

Accusations are easy to make, and unfortunately mud often sticks. I would call upon Sauron to present evidence of his charges instead of merely slinging mud. Mud tends to also adhere to the one slinging… Then again the whole issue of personalities and personal insults seem totally irrelevant to the main game, so I would prefer to see it dropped altogether.

Finally, as something of an aside, I am completely bemused by the repeated atheist claim on Theology Web by the likes of Jimbo and Sauron that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods, when what I see on this list from them is outright hatred of Christianity, the Bible and Christians. There ARE indeed many practical atheists in the world who have no time for even thinking about God, religion with a capital “R” or spirituality, but the kind of committed philosophic atheists who hang out with the Online Infidels are militantly and obsessively focused upon attacking God, especially the Christian God. God-obsessed atheists I call them, fundamentalist atheists someone else has called them…

Mark

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 06:05 AM

Jinx,

ABTW, did I miss something or do you have multiple personality disorder? What's with the constantly changing sign-off name? Just curious.

Let me ask you: Do you think these names are false? Believe me, there is a point to this question.

Gerry

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 06:38 AM

Markg,

Finally, as something of an aside, I am completely bemused by the repeated atheist claim on Theology Web by the likes of Jimbo and Sauron that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods, when what I see on this list from them is outright hatred of Christianity, the Bible and Christians.

Keep in mind that atheism is not an ideology--any more than aEasterBunnyism is. The only thing that atheists agree on that there is no God or gods. Some atheists speak out about religion, but most do not.

If a public discussion board promotes a religion that labels unbelievers as evil and promises an eternity of pain and suffering to those unbelievers, it probably isn't too surprising that the board would receive a few negative comments from unbelievers.

Mike

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 12:18 PM

03-07-2003 @ 03:23 AM
wienerdog:
I suspect there's a history between Jimbo and JP here of which I know nothing, but I'm not going to let my ignorance prevent me from forcing my viewpoint on others.

I am quite sure "jimbo" and I have crossed paths before. I rate a 75% chance he is Brooks Trubee. But yes, there are a number of past posts behind this.

Is that your own dog in the pic? A real cutie.

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 12:20 PM

For markg:

Have you ckecked out any of my new "banter free" versions? They put me to sleep, but I'm testing demand now.

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 12:22 PM

03-07-2003 @ 10:05 AM
jimbo:

Let me ask you: Do you think these names are false? Believe me, there is a point to this question.

Gerry

Oh, Jimbo/Brooks/Myrtle/Rizpah/Juan/Molokai, my dear boy, we don't CARE if they are false are not. We just feel sorry for you. What meds are you on for this condition? :rofl:

jimbo

March 7th 2003, 12:52 PM

J.P. Holding,

Oh, Jimbo/Brooks/Myrtle/Rizpah/Juan/Molokai, my dear boy, we don't CARE if they are false are not.

I'll ask the question to you: Do you think these names are false? Again, there is a point to this question.

Larry

The Laughing Man

March 7th 2003, 01:40 PM

I would gather that most people here neither know nor care if they are or not, Jimbo.

jpholding

March 7th 2003, 01:57 PM

Dearest Jimbo/Bill/Mickey/Tawana/Corky/Brooks,

May the point of your question be much more comfortable as a seating arrangement for you at your terminal. Bless you! :smile:

wienerdog

March 8th 2003, 03:12 AM

03-07-2003 @ 04:18 PM
jpholding:
Is that your own dog in the pic? A real cutie.

Yep! That's my wiener!

wienerdog

March 8th 2003, 03:16 AM

I'll ask the question to you: Do you think these names are false? Again, there is a point to this question.

OK, I'll bite. No, I don't think those are all your real names. Make your point.

jpholding

March 10th 2003, 01:29 PM

Looks like Jimbo has no point other than the one he uses as a seat.

Anyways for the entertainment of others I made the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead.html

Dee Dee Warren

March 10th 2003, 05:45 PM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 12:39 AM

To Saurkraut:

We all wanna grow up to be as anal and petty as you.

You will have to become a more advanced life form at some point.

1. If so, then I'm sure that advanced life form will not resemble you in the least.

2. Glad to see you endorse evolution, though. Now maybe you can explain why you think AiG's comments have any scientific merit.

In deference to moderator wishes the remainder of this shall be directed only to what I deem as necessary defense

Translation: in the following exchange, you will pretend to respect some moderator's wish for decorum, while simultaneously continuing your ad hominem behavior.

If they want it, they can get it - I can't really stop them

Evasion and inconsistency.

Not inconsistent at all. The scenarios are simply different, a distinction that has flown over your head.

In your case, these inmates already have:
1. your ACTUAL name;
2. your place of employment;
3. what state/county, and a very reasonable guess as to the town/city you live in; and
4. if they ever saw you driving to work, or leaving, then they know your car, license plate, etc. AND
5. quite possibly the name of your wife, from your own conversations or comments over time

In my case, the situation is different because points 1-5 are not known. If I *did* give them 1-5 then yes; I do believe that I couldn't stop them, and I believe that such inmates could get whatever info they wanted about me. But without any of that info, they have no place to start looking.

That is precisely why your rationalization for using a pseudonym is not believable; the amount of information already available to such inmates makes hunting you down a trivial task. Pretending that a pseudonym shields you is like pretending that a g-string is the same as a bulletproof vest.

If this is so then there should not be a moment's hesitation in providing this information at once.

Asked and answered - (1) the two situations are not equal; and (2) I wouldn't give such info to YOU (of all people) in any case. You're sufficiently petty and lacking in decency to obviate why that would be a bad idea.

By the (ahem, cough, hack) logic thus far presented, since they can "get it anyway" it is pointless to close other doors to them. Your name, address, and phone for the nice men in blue, please.

Asked and answered - (1) the two situations are not equal; and (2) I wouldn't give such info to YOU (of all people) in any case. You're sufficiently petty and lacking in decency to obviate why that would be a bad idea.

Interesting, is it not: My detailed personal experience is a spun "yarn"; it is "blown out of proportion"; etc.

Yes, it is, based upon your past behavior - other postings you've made, responses you've sent to people in mail, and the desperate rationalizations you've offered for basic dishonesty and lack of debate courtesy and professionalism. Your actions define your reputation - perhaps you should consider that.

BTW - I just talked to my nephew on the phone, the one who works in the sex-offender facility. I described the situation, and your claim, just to be sure that I wasn't overlooking something that might vindicate you. After he got through laughing, he said "That guy's what is known on the inside as a "wankster" - someone who creates these role-playing scenarios in his mind, to try and inflate their own importance. It's like the $6.00 an hour rent-a-cop that daydreams about being on a SWAT team in a real police force."

Let the hypocsrisy, and the silence associated with it, speak for itself.

No hypocrisy. I provided specifics.

Ah. And of course prison inmates have all the knowledge acessible to persons working in the USAF and as deputy sheriffs.

If it's so easy, tell us how to do it.

Are you claiming that it is NOT easy for an inmate to get that personal information about someone? If so, then what are you so afraid of in the first place? Why the pseudonym, if it isn't easy to get that kind of data? My my my, little J. P. Hypocrite.

In any event, your question is just a red herring. The point of bringing up USAF / deputy sheriff was to show that even before the advent of the internet, such personal data was fairly trivial to find out. Start with a name or address, and then with a few phone calls, a friend in DMV or the phone company, etc. and it's done - the information is yours.

How could a prison inmate do it? By reaching "through walls" and getting an outside contact to find out for them.

Information gets smuggled as easily as cigarettes or drugs do, which is a lot more common than many people believe. I remember my nephew telling me how much easier it is to get steroids inside prison, than on the street; I found that sort of ironic.

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 12:43 AM

Better not let Iasion or Vinnie see this post. :no:

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 12:45 AM

Look at this way - skeptics have found out all this stuff about you and your "exciting career in combat prison librarianship" just by surfing the net.

Thanks to, er, who is my name all over the place? One J. Farrell Till, who breached the trust given him to satiate his own fantasies and to counteract his inability to refute my work on an argumentative level.

No, not thanks to Till. I've never met Till; but I've seen no evidence that he has any fantasies involving you. Moreover, his arguments are significantly more cogent and professional than yours. I'm not sure why you continue to blame Till for leaking your "secret identity" anyhow, unless it's just a bad case of misplaced aggression over your own blunder. You've told several people your real name - not just Till.

Why would you want to reveal your own name, once the pseudonym was firmly established? What purpose could it serve, except to feed your ego? Moreover, you yourself routinely reveal your real name in your e-mail address when you reply to those who send e-mail to you at your web site.

You're not doing a very good job of trying to keep your secret identity a secret, Batman.
:bonk:

And, of course, your ratinalization for using a pseudonym is further refuted by the fact that you've TOLD PEOPLE YOUR NAME.

Er, people who are not inmates. :dizzy spell:

If you were in any real mortal danger from inmates, then telling ANYONE was a really stupid move on your part - especially over the internet. Plain, downright dumb - *IF* you were in any danger, that is.

On the other hand, if you've adopted a pseudonym merely to gratify your own pride, then telling people your real name is just another ego-stroking exercise; why, such lucky (?) mortal they are! They get to meet the "genius" behind Tektonics!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is yet another reason why your rationalization for the pseudonym is not credible - you break it too often.

This is not a maximum security facility

Ah, were you as well-tutored as you claim to be, you'd grasp that custody level is not always relevant. Meanwhile we are apparently to accept "specious quarter-whispers" about alleged editing offenses on...how much more validation?

1. You were the one who brought up custody as a measure of inmate danger. Are you now saying that it is not?

2. I saw your revised essays, and corresponded with several other Infidels where we laughed about your inability to refute arguments without moving the goalposts.

And you can see each inmate, where they're located, and what their crimes are. How about a relevant example?

Relevant? Picked the first in alphabetical order, I see; indeed a remarkably representative sample yak yak bluster bluster....

Huh? Strawman argument.

I did not say the person I chose was "representative"; I said they were relevant - that is, relevant to answering your earlier question about what kind of data could be gleaned from the FL DC website. Your question, once again, was:

2) Number of violent offenders and their crimes?

I picked a random inmate to perouse, and show that one can indeed know where they're located, and what their crimes are. A fact you didn't seem to know, BTW.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the FL DC website contains, before trying to discuss it, eh?

Perhaps you like associating with this type of person, who knows.

Pointless ad hominem. So much for respecting the moderator's wishes.

Meanwhile how about a slightly larger and more relevant
sample?

RONALD E TERRY

Ooooooh nasty mean inmate! Ain't you the brave librarian! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your reply is a red herring, for 3 reasons:

1. As I explained above, I said "relevant". The point was to show you that your belief about what kinds of inmate data was available (or not available) from the FL DC website was deficient; and

2. I never said that your prison housed peaceful tax-evaders. But your trumped up characterization of librarians in mortal danger from vicious paper cuts is so sadly over-the-top that it needs to be challenged, and the fact that you were not in a maximum security facility is relevant;

3. And finally, you've yet to show that the individual inmate you offered up here is representative of the inmate population anyhow. For all anyone knows, you cherry-picked someone here as an extreme case. If it's your contention that this person is representative, then show your statistical data that demonstrates they are within a reasonable range of the median inmate in terms of type of offense, sentence, etc.

PS - use both sides of the paper, if necessary. :deal:

This fine gentleman worked for me for four years.

Yawn. Another irrelevant red herring, for the same 3 reasons as stated above. And again, you offer no evidence that this person is representative, either.

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 12:51 AM

Also would like to know -- still -- why you think FL DC's website tells people to be careful about Inmate Penpals. Maybe it's because of all those credit card offers they send.

Invalid comparison.

Telling an inmate too much information (real name, state of residence, county/town of residence, etc.) can be a risky venture. No one disputes that. But again: the situations are not equal. In the pen pal scenario, they have yet to divulge any information to the inmate - so a cautionary comment is warranted; there is something that hasn't been breached yet that should be protected (the civilian's privacy). Why is this to be cautioned against? Because armed with that information, the inmate could discover the rest. But in your situation, the "damage" is already done - the inmates already have all that private info about you. What's the point of a pseudonym, once the identifying personal data is already out in the open?

What you're asking us to believe is that you can:

* work among them on a daily basis, where
* they have access to all that kind of personal information; and then
* effectively shield yourself by adopting nothing more than an internet pseudonym; which you
* only use on an inconsistent basis; even though
* you're not even employed there any longer.

Heavens, will you be forced to continue using pseudonym for the rest of your life? To prevent geriatric inmates from hunting you down in their old age, to avenge themselves of ancient grudges? I guess you'll have to do so; since the "danger" might always be out there, huh? Can't be too sure, you know! Hide!
:shy: :shy:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The ludicrousness of your defense is precisely why it isn't believable. There are too many holes in your explanation. And it's also why the real reason for the pseudonym -- pretentious ego-stroking -- is the obvious root motive here.

That information is *not* missing from Lake CI's description - again, read before responding

Try reporting honestly. It was missing from YOUR layout of the data.

Huh? I just copied some relevant sections from the website. I never claimed I copied the entire site's contents into my post. There are several pages of data about Lake CI there, and I wasn't about to copy all that info into my post; it wasn't necessary. You slammed the accuracy of the website itself, before even bothering to view it. Trying to shift the blame on me, because I didn't copy the entire site, is childish - but not unexpected.
:whip:

You never could stay on point, without one of your lame attempts at analogy.

Notice what's missing:

Yes - a professional approach to apologetics. Your analogies, like your insults, are wearisome to read. Your debating style drags out your points, which are usually hard to find anyhow.
:zzz:

That's different. They served as guards. You were nothing more than a librarian. Comparing apples and oranges.

Still waiting for an explanation as to WHY and HOW.

WHY - you're not a guard.
HOW - you're obviously not guard material. Too much ego, not enough ability to remain emotionally detached. There; that was easy.
:duh:

And for the comparison with guards - your question is ridiculous. Are you now going to claim that prison guards and librarians - that's LIBRARIANS, folks - have:

* equal frequency of confrontations with inmates?
* equal intensity of conflict with inmates?
* equal amounts of disciplinary events?

Are librarians tasked with:
* carrying out disciplinary orders?
* Strip searches?
* Transporting violent prisoners to/from counseling / medical facilities / legal appointments / etc?

You really think your profession and interaction exposes you to anything remotely the same as a prison guard experiences?

YOU SIT IN A LIBRARY. YOU CHECK OUT BOOKS AND MAGAZINES. YOU FILE PAPERWORK. GET OVER YOURSELF. EVERYONE ELSE HAS.

This is the old "you can't compare yourself to Dan Barker because he's bigger than you" shazam.

You're a fraud, Holding. You wildly inflate the claims of danger, so that you can rationalize wanting to use a pseudonym.

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 12:51 AM

JP, please avoid references that would imply associations with or desires to associate with criminals. Thank you.

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 12:57 AM

Besides, their attitude was more like "Wanna mess with me, con?

Well, then, pass us that name, address, and phone number, and that of any women or children in your family, and we will be on our way.

Asked and answered - (1) the two situations are not equal; and (2) I wouldn't give such info to YOU (of all people) in any case. You're sufficiently petty and lacking in decency to obviate why that would be a bad idea.

3. you aren't consistent in using the pseudonym in the other areas of your life - credit card, bank accounts, etc.

Ah. Forgive me, I forgot that listings of bank accounts, credit card accounts, etc. were being freely distributed in prisons.

1. Irrelevant. An inmate can "reach through the wall" and get a friend/relative/other ex-con on the outside to track you down.

2. Actually, the prisons are major sources of bargain-basement labor for telemarketers and credit-card companies. Funny that you don't know that?

http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=216994&flt=Middle_School&pathTitles=/Consumer_Privacy/Prison_Labor_Telemarketing/Convicts_Telemarketing&version=2&tg=Communication

Convicts are a dependable workforce, says manager

GREAT FALLS, Mont. (AP) - State inmates at the regional jail here are working as telemarketers, and officials say precautions have been taken to avoid the abuses that have marred such operations in other states.

Since May the inmates have pitched a voicemail system for
telecommunications giant MCI under contract with Inmark International LLC, a Las Vegas company that markets by phone in several states under different arrangements, from prisons to big offices to homes.

The reason for hiring inmates, says Steve Hatfield, a Telemark manager, is simple: "I need people who are there every day."

He said Telemark had to staff a 250-desk facility in Nevada with only 75 workers, despite hiring by the hundreds.

If inmates quit before their six-month contract ends, they could be "written up" for breaking jail rules.

Hatfield says the work seems to have a positive effect on the inmates.

"We train them to become customer service reps in the future, getting them to talk in a professional manner," he said.

Inmates also may earn a certificate to use in future job-seeking.

Glen Davis of Montana Correctional Enterprises at Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge agrees that the inmates benefit. "We teach them a work ethic. We teach them a job skill," Davis said. "Most of these guys don't have any discipline in their lives. That's why they're here."

At least 17 states now have programs involving prisoners working with the public over the telephone.

Some programs have drawn criticism for allowing prisoners access to people's credit card numbers, bank records, home addresses and other information that could be exploited. Montana officials say they have avoided those pitfalls.

Oh, my. What's this here, now?

http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=216993&flt=Middle_School&pathTitles=/Consumer_Privacy/Prison_Labor_Telemarketing/Telemarketing_Convicts&version=2&tg=Communication

Is a Convict on the Line?
Officials Rethink Having Inmates Gather Personal Info

May 26 — Utah officials are considering whether to stop using prisoners to make telemarketing calls and answer phones after complaints that it gives inmates improper access to personal information and puts citizens at risk.

The prison system currently hires out inmates to man information lines for the state’s commerce and travel agencies, and to make telemarketing calls for a family-oriented video company. Often, members of the public may be unaware that they are talking to inmates.

Gee. Vindication feels good.
:yipee:

Do you see Glenn Miller engaged in that kind of behavior? William Lane Craig?

G. K. Chesteron? Tertullian? Alexander Pope? Jonathan Swift? Why no, but the oxen they gored did moo quite loudly.

1. Yeah, right - if you're in the same category as these authors, then roadkill carcass is the same category as cheese pizza.

:rofl: :rofl:

2. Your self-comparison to these individuals may be flattering to you, but it's not even accurate. Attempts to re-characterize your pompous and deliberate ad hominem style as being merely witty - well, it's nonsense.

I suspect it's because II has a more structured format than what is permitted here.

The devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.

I thought of that quote, while watching your over-the-top reaction to being challenged.

Yes, and what do we find there?

Oh yes. Did you ask FTill's permission before trying to think for yourself?

Yawn. Just because you're obsessed with Till, doesn't mean that everyone else is. I've never met the man; only exchanged a half-dozen emails or so with him. Have you thought about seeking professional help to overcome this fixation of yours?
:dufus:

JPH is invited over to Infidels.

Ah, so your own rejection of a debate = lack of cojones. Thank you.

BZZT. Non sequitir. I'm not the one posturing and claiming to be an apologist. Nor am I the one with a puerile website advertising "come one, come all" to argue with you about such topics. No, Mr J. Petty Holding, you're the one doing all that. Therefore, the burden of proof is not on me; it's on you - since you've stated that such debates are your stock in trade.
:duh:

Unless, of course, they're in a forum where you can't pull your tricks and get away with them, in which case, uh, I think your mother is calling you....time to run home......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 01:04 AM

Hmm, Sauron, and pray tell what "tricks" is JP getting "away with" here? You mean the same "ticks" that your last post also took advantage of? You mean the playing field is actually level and we leave it up to the opponents to point out the flaws in each other's arguments rather than as Till suggested try to enforce subjective rules that forbid one's opponent from having a bad argument?? We only interevene if obvious boundaries are crossed and are not baby-sitters?? Shh, don't let word of that get out.

[my tongue is placed firmly in my cheek as this post is more for the benefit of bellyachers who can only seem to see one person who engages in highly satirical polemic - for the record Sauron, I do not have a problem with the style of your posts (though of course you know I think the content has a lot to be desired) - if you cross the line you will be told]

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 01:04 AM

I spoke to one of my former workmates today, a teacher at the prison, and he reminded me of something. It seems that guards
("officers" as they prefer to be called here) often have this attitude problem that makes them look down on "civilian" employees.Not all of them. Just the ones who think they're hot enforcers and have dreams of being REAL police officers.

"Dreams of being real?" Funny. Seems to me that YOU were the one inflating the risks and dangers of being a librarian, Mr J. Pretentious Holding.

In any event, my father never acted like that - didn't need to; he was a deputy sheriff before becoming a guard, so he had nothing to prove to anyone. My nephew also doesn't act like that; his best friends are the civilian (non-guard) employees, because they aren't competing for the same job shifts that he wants, or when promotions come around. Besides, the teachers are also helping him finish his college education - something that I, his mom, and his dad are continually harping on.

So if you thought you were going to dismiss the real-world prison experience of my family members by tossing out a vague allegation that they must have been biased against you, a non-guard employee, it ain't gonna stick. Bottom line here: your story of guards having disdain for other employees doesn't give you the wiggle room you were hoping for.

Anyway they like to pretend that civvies aren't taking the same risks they do working behind bars.

That's because they don't take the same risks. Period. End of story.

That's also why the pay, the training, and the equipment are different for guards, as opposed to teachers, cooks, and
librarians.
:duh:

No matter if you're a teacher, classification officer, etc. As far as they're concerned, you're not "really" at the same risk because you're not what they are.

And you know what? They're right. You aren't the same, because the risk is not the same. Period.

It isn't a matter of bad attitude on the part of the guards. The facts are that they are in a much greater exposure to danger than you were. Unless you're ready to explain how prison guards and librarians have:

* equal frequency of confrontations with inmates?
* equal intensity of conflict with inmates?
* equal amounts of disciplinary events?

Are librarians tasked with:
* carrying out disciplinary orders?
* Strip searches?
* Transporting violent prisoners to/from counseling / medical facilities / legal appointments / etc?

Not that they can ever explain why in a rational manner.

Sure they can. You just ignore the real differences, and persist in your "combat librarian" fantasy. If you think you're at equal risk, then YOU should be the one to explain it. After all, you weren't wearing a gun, nightstick, mace, handcuffs, protective gear, or anything else while doing your job. But they are. Yet you say the risk is equal. The available evidence contradicts you. Burden of proof is on your pretentious backside.
:bonk:

:huh: Gee; wonder why the prison system sees fit to equip them with such things, and not to give them to you?

:idea: Could it be that librarians have only a fraction of the risk that a guard has? And that you don't want to admit that, because it undercuts your flimsy rationalization for the pseudonym?

:thumb: :thumb:

It's just that when these sorts wear one of those straw hats, it tends to crush certain vital organs.

And now guards; why, they're brain-damaged, - yes, that *must* be it. I mean, what other explanation could there be? It can't be because your ego can't admit that you use a pretentious pseudonym, can it?
:dufus:

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 01:08 AM

Now back to the topic... I find the topic extraordinarily boring and person's obsession with JP's real name extraordinarily petty. Just my two cents. Is Sauron your real name? If not, don't be so pretentious. Just say the word, and I can use my Super Duper Admin powers to change your registered name to your real name, and you will not lose a bit of your stats.

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 01:28 AM

Dee Dee,

You seem like a somewhat reasonable person. Would you provide me with a link to what you consider to be a good example of a Theologyweb.com debate? I know there are several out there to perouse; but I'm looking for what you consider to be one of the *better* examples.

And yes - I do expect a formal debate to have a moderator that enforces rules. If you've ever done any kind of debating, that's exactly what you'll find. The same thing would happen in a courtroom - another place where the goal is to actually arrive at the facts of the matter, and not award points for eloquence or labored witticisms.

Now I realize that the governing board of TWeb may choose to forego such rules and formal structure; that's your choice. But the reason that formal debates and courtrooms have such rules in the first place is to burn away the chaff of pretense and false assertion, and get at the heart of the matter.

Do you want a forum and process that evaluates the core issues of any given question? Or do you want a free-for-all that has more heat than light?

In the end, it really depends upon what your goal is. I can't answer that; only you (and the other moderators) can.

Cheers.

Sauron

March 12th 2003, 01:34 AM

03-11-2003 @ 09:08 PM
Dee Dee Warren:

Now back to the topic... I find the topic extraordinarily boring and person's obsession with JP's real name extraordinarily petty.

Yes, it might be boring to you, but that's the life of a moderator. :bonk:

Just my two cents. Is Sauron your real name? If not, don't be so pretentious.

Pretentious? I'm not the one with the pseudonym, Dee Dee.

I wouldn't give a rip if Holding just had an avatar. Most people do. But what he has instead is a pseudonym, and a bogus reason for having it. It's a LIE, Dee Dee. As a christian apologist, that should bother him - and it should bother anyone who listens to him. Right out of the starting gate, this so-called christian is telling a transparent lie.

Now: in the grand scheme of things, does it matter? Is it the end of western civilization, that he has it? No. But it's a case in point, that illustrates the kind of person that Holding is.

Just say the word, and I can use my Super Duper Admin powers to change your registered name to your real name, and you will not lose a bit of your stats.

How about Holding? What did he say, when you made the same offer to him?

Don't tell me you didn't do that already?

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 06:53 AM

03-12-2003 @ 12:28 AM
Sauron:

Dee Dee,

You seem like a somewhat reasonable person.

I try to be despite some opinion to the contrary.

Would you provide me with a link to what you consider to be a good example of a Theologyweb.com debate? I know there are several out there to perouse; but I'm looking for what you consider to be one of the *better* examples.

Sure, give me a sec and I will send you some. Are you referring to just general threads (those tend to be a mixed bag) or an actual "debate"?

And yes - I do expect a formal debate to have a moderator that enforces rules. If you've ever done any kind of debating, that's exactly what you'll find.

Yes me too, and I have done that sort of thing. I know you are ignorant of what I am referring to here because you did not participate, but what Till had wanted was rules that prevented his opponent from making arguments that were "bad" in Till's subjective opinoin of course. But I am sure you realize that is the whole point of debating. If I am debating you let's say, and you give a "bad" argument, it is MY job as your opponent, to use that to my advantage in my response, not the job of the Moderator.

The same thing would happen in a courtroom - another place where the goal is to actually arrive at the facts of the matter, and not award points for eloquence or labored witticisms.

And that is the job of the debate opponent to point those things out... the Moderator only intervenes when very clearly out of line behaviour happens.... which you have seen me do on several occasions, but solicitied and unsolictied.

Now I realize that the governing board of TWeb may choose to forego such rules and formal structure; that's your choice.

You have seen me intervene several times. And yes, the threads are much less structured than our formal debate section.

But the reason that formal debates and courtrooms have such rules in the first place is to burn away the chaff of pretense and false assertion, and get at the heart of the matter.

The analogy fails on several grounds (I am a legal professional by trade) but in general it is the two attorneys who must persuade the jury of the flaws of the other case. The Judge (except for rules of law that must be decided) cannot have adjudicate that another side is not allowed to NOT deal with evidence or say a silly argument. It is the job of the opposing counsel to capitalize on such things.

Do you want a forum and process that evaluates the core issues of any given question? Or do you want a free-for-all that has more heat than light?

In any open forum there is going to be a bit of both. One man's heat can be another man's light. The job of the leadership is to ojbectively as possible decide violations of the rules.

In the end, it really depends upon what your goal is. I can't answer that; only you (and the other moderators) can.

The goal is to have an open forum for free and frank discussion of theological matters where there is a "moderate" level of moderating meaning we don't get all worked up over satire and humor, but we also do not allow every sort of joke or every sort of language. I think you have seen that here in threads you have participated in. And you have enjoyed that freedom your self. There are those who believe your comments generate much more heat than light. That however, if you are not breaking the rules, is not my problem. The same goes for any member.

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 07:04 AM

03-12-2003 @ 12:34 AM
Sauron:

Yes, it might be boring to you, but that's the life of a moderator. :bonk:

Actually (and this gets tough I know) I was my comment simply as a participant in this thread, not as Moderator. I am not bored with the issue as a Moderator.. I am bored with the issue as a person reading this thread. It is simply inane and obessesive on your part IMHO.

Pretentious? I'm not the one with the pseudonym, Dee Dee.

Do you find Stephen King to be pretentious? Do you find yourself to be pretentious. I am assuming Sauron is not your real name.

I wouldn't give a rip if Holding just had an avatar. Most people do. But what he has instead is a pseudonym, and a bogus reason for having it. It's a LIE, Dee Dee. As a christian apologist, that should bother him - and it should bother anyone who listens to him. Right out of the starting gate, this so-called christian is telling a transparent lie.

You are not using your real name either so your comment are hollow. And even if you were, so what? And you are wrong that most people simply have an avatar. The percentage of usernames here that are real names is neglible. And who cares? How is that your obsession and business? And as far as his reasons...first of all, I do not care what his reasons are that simply is not my concern... second of all, (and this is taking your argument as basically accurate for the sake of comment), all you will have proven is that he is possibly deluded, self-important, paranoid and inconsistent. So what? An outright liar is a very strong charge. I do not make such accusations without unequivocal evidence of intent, actual deceit, etc. You have proven no such thing.... I don't see how it is your job or business to decide the legitimacy of why he he uses a psuedonym. Your obsession with the issue would be reason enough for me if I were him.

How about Holding? What did he say, when you made the same offer to him?

That was a really dumb comment Sauron. Why would I make the same offer to him. He is not bellyaching about the pretentiousness of psuedonyms, you are.... if they are so darned vile, then I am offering to change your username. I find you are not so eager to do so... and notice I could really care less why you choose not to.

jpholding

March 12th 2003, 11:44 AM

Curious, is it not: The amount of time Saurhead wastes yapping about the peripheral issue of my personal decisions, at least what, 4-5 messages? A clear sign of inability to comes to grips with me on real issues. A sign of personal obsession. A sign of Skeptical Frustration. :rofl:

Saurhead, you are showing yourself to be a childish little egotist and have now become a waste of my time. You still have remained a hypocrite inasmuch as you won't provide your name and address to prove just how safe you think it is to distribute such information freely to inmates. If you don't want to give it to me, I will find a neutral party you can trust (like Kyle Gerkin) and give him a list of FL inmates to send your name and address and phone number to. Well?

Yes, it is, based upon your past behavior

Past behavior that we are still waiting for you to document beyond mere claims and names. Keep chasing that tail in a circle. You provided no specifics at all -- none that documented your claims.

BTW - I just talked to my nephew on the phone, the one who works in the sex-offender facility.

Fair enough. I spoke yesterday to my former supervisor, an Assistant Warden. When I described your attitude and argumentation, he gave me a look like he had been asked to hold a rabid weasel, and then laughed around his cigar. He also noted that just recently a nurse had been stabbed. And as noted, it is guards who have the fantasies of believing that their job of handing out toliet paper 99% of the time is any more of a risk as a whole being among a thousand or more violent criminals at one time.

Are you claiming that it is NOT easy for an inmate to get that personal information about someone?

Playing Till's game of evasion. You learn well from him. Answer the question. As an aside it seems to me that handing out personal info, as from a friend in the phone company, would today result in some fairly serious punishments. In other words it means that an inmate would need to use illegal means, which merely proves my points.

Moreover, his arguments are significantly more cogent and professional than yours.

Yes, it was quite cogent of him to suggest, i.e., that Yahweh could not actually own the land because it would make it hard for people not to violate the rule against coveting. :rofl: Little wonder you refuse to defend him or his ideas in debate against me, and continue to obsess on the writing name issue. It's all you have to hang on to.

I'm not sure why you continue to blame Till for leaking your "secret identity" anyhow, unless it's just a bad case of misplaced aggression over your own blunder. You've told several people your real name - not just Till.

Till was the first one to use my real name online and others followed suit. He leaked it in public forums and was the first to do so. The others I told did not until well after that time.

Why would you want to reveal your own name, once the pseudonym was firmly established? What purpose could it serve, except to feed your ego? Moreover, you yourself routinely reveal your real name in your e-mail address when you reply to those who send e-mail to you at your web site.

Email is not accessible to public searching and I saw no need not to be honest about it with readers and correspondents. As for ego feeding, I'd like to hear a convoluted explanation from you as to how that works out psychologically. The funny thing is, had I not been honest with infidels.org people about my real name, it seems likely that we'd have heard a hue and cry about it from FTill anyway.

If you were in any real mortal danger from inmates, then telling ANYONE was a really stupid move on your part - especially over the internet.

In other words, you admit that persons like FTill are as shiftless as inmates and not to be trusted. Well, perhaps that is what I deserve for thinking that people like him would show respect for others rather than engaging in shiftless tactics. FTill earned his stars.

On the other hand, if you've adopted a pseudonym merely to gratify your own pride, then telling people your real name is just another ego-stroking exercise; why, such lucky (?) mortal they are! They get to meet the "genius" behind Tektonics!

That made a truckload of sense. So would you get an ego stroke by revealing the real name behind "Sauron" or is that just some makeshift psychological explanation you have come up with to justify your bad attitude and obsessive focus?

1. You were the one who brought up custody as a measure of inmate danger. Are you now saying that it is not?

Evasion. It is a measure, but far from the only one, and furthermore many of the inmates at Lake CI transferred from higher custody facilities like Union CI.

2. I saw your revised essays, and corresponded with several other Infidels where we laughed about your inability to refute arguments without moving the goalposts.

More specifics from Saurhead's imagination! :rofl:

I did not say the person I chose was "representative";

If you did not mean to pick one that was representative, then what was the point? Picking just one out of the 6000 or so that I was around doesn't prove a danged thing.

I picked a random inmate to perouse, and show that one can indeed know where they're located, and what their crimes are. A fact you didn't seem to know, BTW.

I was well aware of it, and showing you can know where they are located and what kind of crimes they committed proves nothing relevant in this context. More evasion from your keyboard. And a non-answer on Ronald Terry, the only answer you have. Again, just pass that address on to our neutral party and we'll be sure Ronald and friends can contact you.

3. And finally, you've yet to show that the individual inmate you offered up here is representative of the inmate population anyhow. For all anyone knows, you cherry-picked someone here as an extreme case.

For all you want to know, for all the obsession you have, that's inevitably what you will say just to keep your frustation sedated. You want a complete list of all the inmates that worked for me, that I dealt with most? There were probably about 500. Though why I should waste time for your sake when you won't even provide hard details of my alleged excesses, I can't imagine.

Telling an inmate too much information (real name, state of residence, county/town of residence, etc.) can be a risky venture. No one disputes that. But again: the situations are not equal. In the pen pal scenario, they have yet to divulge any information to the inmate

Which still dodges the question of why anyone should not do whatever they feel is necessary to cut off such accessibility by any means possible. Keep chasing that tail in a circle.

Heavens, will you be forced to continue using pseudonym for the rest of your life?

By now it is so well known, having been used in publications, that I will continue to use it regardless of such threats. I may even have it legally changed for convenience purposes.

Huh? I just copied some relevant sections from the website. I never claimed I copied the entire site's contents into my post.

More evasion. It remains that you left it out, and that it was highly pertinent data in context. Yes, you truly do learn well from your master FTill.

WHY - you're not a guard.

Oh, that explains it: "Why?" "Because!" :rofl: What few reasons you give below are rambunctiously irrelevant.

HOW - you're obviously not guard material.

True. To be an average guard I would have to be much less educated.

* equal frequency of confrontations with inmates?

Yes. If they don't they are not doing their job.

* equal intensity of conflict with inmates?

Probably not always, since guards as a whole tend to have poor conflict resolution skills and thereby tend to escalate rather than subdue any conflicts.

* equal amounts of disciplinary events?

Yes. Again if they do not, they are not doing their job.

* carrying out disciplinary orders?

Like what?

* Strip searches?

Not here. Searches of inmate property, yes.

* Transporting violent prisoners to/from counseling / medical facilities / legal appointments / etc?

Oooh, transporting. That would make 'em mad. :lol: Seems to me they need as many as 2-3 guards to do such a job. Keep in mind these same guys also come into the library unescorted.

You really think your profession and interaction exposes you to anything remotely the same as a prison guard experiences?

Substantially the same. You merely cherry-picked unique duties as though that told the story completely. Your description of "my" job is that of someone who does not do their job, and that was not me.

2. Actually, the prisons are major sources of bargain-basement labor for telemarketers and credit-card companies. Funny that you don't know that?

I knew it. Funny how you fail to see how the data validates my claims.

1. Yeah, right - if you're in the same category as these authors, then roadkill carcass is the same category as cheese pizza.

More specifics from the King of Specifics! :rofl:

Yawn. Just because you're obsessed with Till, doesn't mean that everyone else is. I've never met the man; only exchanged a half-dozen emails or so with him.

Whether you have met him is not the issue. You follow his style to a T, as your entire exchange here shows, and even this last answer: Evade by changing the point.

I'm not the one posturing and claiming to be an apologist. Nor am I the one with a puerile website advertising "come one, come all" to argue with you about such topics.

True. You are rather the one refusing to engage such debate and instead obsessively focussing on an irrelevant peripheral.

Unless, of course, they're in a forum where you can't pull your tricks and get away with them

I'll leave it to Dee Dee to defend the implied slur against her character and that of the other moderators here.

In any event, my father never acted like that - didn't need to; he was a deputy sheriff before becoming a guard, so he had nothing to prove to anyone. My nephew also doesn't act like that; his best friends are the civilian (non-guard) employees

Proves what? "I can't be prejudiced against black people. Some of my best friends are black." Whether they actually have such prejudices or not, it is clear that you do.

That's also why the pay, the training, and the equipment are different for guards, as opposed to teachers, cooks, and librarians.

Oh yes. Pay is much lower for officers. My training was the same except for weapons training, and all civvies here are (or were) allowed to take that if they want to.

Sure they can.

Too bad you failed in your attempt to do so.

After all, you weren't wearing a gun, nightstick, mace, handcuffs, protective gear, or anything else while doing your job. But they are.

Pfft, hack -- in saying so you just prove just how much MORE risk a civvie employee takes when he/she does their job!!! They have no means of protection other than a telephone! And now here in FL, all civvie employees wear personal alarms. Gee -- now why would they need that, huh?!? Maybe they just want to make prank alarm calls to the control room? :lol:

Burden of proof is on your pretentious backside.

Burden has been adequately satisifed. Well, we've wasted enough time as it is addressing your frustrated obsession with me. I'm wasting no more -- I've shown ample proof that you are an evader who can't back up his claims with specifics, and has to cherry-pick and reach for the stars to justify yourself. You're obviously not competent to debate me on a real topic, and too out of courage to do so.

Dee Dee Warren

March 12th 2003, 03:32 PM

Dear Sauron:

JP had indicated that he does not wish to further discuss his reasons for wanting to maintain the privacy of his real name. I understand you may disagree. However, it is part of our forum policy to uphold any member's desire to keep private information private, and no member is under an obligation to explain why they wish to do so. For all TWeb cares it could be because the groundhog didn't see his shadow, the reasons for wanting privacy are just as private as the information itself. However since JP was willing to debate the issue, that is his perogative. Now that he no longer wishes to, we consider this matter to be closed and not properly the subject of futher productive conversation.

That being said... it is not my style to insist upon getting the last word and summarily closing threads... so I will keep this thread open if you should wish to comment, then it will be closed. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sauron

March 14th 2003, 01:52 AM

Curious, is it not: The amount of time Saurhead wastes yapping about the peripheral issue of my personal decisions

Not peripheral at all - especially to someone who poses as a christian apologist. The reality is that you are a fraud and don't deal honestly with debate opponents. Both points go to the heart of whether anyone should take you seriously as an apologist.

Saurhead, you are showing yourself to be a childish little egotist and have now become a waste of my time.

Boy, NOW I'm shaking in me boots....
:rofl: :rofl:

You still have remained a hypocrite inasmuch as you won't provide your name and address to prove just how safe you think it is to distribute such information freely to inmates.

Not hypocrisy at all. Why should I give you any such thing? I never said that handing out private info to inmates was a good idea. And since that was never my claim, your request is pointless. But (and here's the difference) YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN THEM THE PRIVATE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO DISCOVER WHATEVER ELSE THEY WANT.

The scenarios are simply different, a distinction that has flown over your head. In your case, these inmates already have:

1. your ACTUAL name;
2. your place of employment;
3. what state/county, and a very reasonable guess as to the town/city you live in; and
4. if they ever saw you driving to work, or leaving, then they know your car, license plate, etc. AND
5. quite possibly the name of your wife, from your own conversations or comments over time

In my case, the situation is different because points 1-5 are not known.

If you don't want to give it to me, I will find a neutral party you can trust (like Kyle Gerkin) and give him a list of FL inmates to send your name and address and phone number to. Well?

A. I don't know Kyle Gerkin - why would I trust him?
B. As for you request - asked and answered - (1)the two situations are not equal; and (2) I never said that inmates were harmless. Create an army of strawman positions if you like; just don't ask me to defend them.
:whip:

What I said is that your claim that your pseudonym shields you, when inmates already have a bounty of information on you; well, that's just a lie and a sham.

Yes, it is, based upon your past behavior

Past behavior that we are still waiting for you to document beyond mere claims and names. Keep chasing that tail in a circle. You provided no specifics at all -- none that documented your claims.

I provided enough specifics. Till documented other cases. Lowder, Still, Carr and Brian Holz can all attest that you edit your work in order to hide your mistakes. For that matter, you gave me proof - you yourself admit that you don't subscribe to the idea of linking to your opponent's arguments, and editing them whenever you want to, in order to get to the point. Basically, you can't win, without moving the goalposts. So you edit your opponent's text.

Sauron

March 14th 2003, 02:02 AM

BTW - I just talked to my nephew on the phone, the one who works in the sex-offender facility.

Fair enough. I spoke yesterday to my former supervisor, an Assistant Warden.

Oh, I'm sure you did. Right.
:ahem:

When I described your attitude and argumentation, he gave me a look like he had been asked to hold a rabid weasel, and then laughed around his cigar.

Unfortunately, considering your past habits of failing to link to other people's arguments and/or editing their responses in debates, I have zero confidence that you represented the situation accurately.

He also noted that just recently a nurse had been stabbed.

Yep, it happens. And on occasion, it happens to courtroom workers and meter maids. So what? You've utterly failed to show:

(1) that it is common or frequent; or
(2) that nurses are at equal risk of danger to that of a guard; and it DEFINITELY doesn't show
(3) that you, a frickin' librarian, are at equal risk of danger to a guard.

All other things being equal, guards are at the highest risk - that's why their training is different, their equipment is different, and their pay is different. Unless you're going to tell us that you attended the correctional officer boot camp, in order to be a LIBRARIAN?
:lol:

And as noted, it is guards who have the fantasies of believing that their job yak yak bluster bluster......

Uh, no. It hasn't been "noted". It's been claimed - by you, and no one else. And even you didn't claim it, until it became obvious that I had family members with real-world prison experience - family members who were busting apart your alibi for employing a pseudonym.

Are you claiming that it is NOT easy for an inmate to get that personal information about someone?

Playing Till's game of evasion.

Evasion? You're the one who isn't answering the question, Mr J Petty Holding.
:rofl:

I really don't understand this fascination with Till, and your attempts to somehow link me to him. I'm not associated with Till. I don't know why you're fishing in that hole; nothing's biting.

Moreover, his arguments are significantly more cogent and professional than yours.

Yes, it was quite cogent of him to suggest, i.e., that Yahweh could not actually own the land because it would make it hard for people not to violate the rule against coveting.

I have no idea if Till said that or not - and obviously, you're not a reliable source about what *anyone* else says, given your general history of mispresenting your opponent. And when it comes to Till, your obsession with him is so rabid that it's doubly true that you can't be trusted to accurately reflect his point.

I do recall, however, reading that you thought Joseph and Mary found lodging in a house because they brushed up on their travel guide skills and knew that "booking early" was a good idea. After all, they wouldn't want to be turned out again, since the first time "there was no room at the inn." What a riot you are.
:rofl:

I'm not sure why you continue to blame Till for leaking your "secret identity" anyhow, unless it's just a bad case of misplaced aggression over your own blunder. You've told several people your real name - not just Till.

Till was the first one to use my real name online and others followed suit.

Was he? Are you sure? I sincerely doubt this. You seem to blame Till for everything anyhow; Till is the bogeyman hiding in every nook and cranny, out to get you. :shy: :shy:

Moreover, I doubt you can prove Till is the "leak" here anyhow. Your real name has been floating around the internet for years.

He leaked it in public forums and was the first to do so. The others I told did not until well after that time.

Not buying it. Where is your proof?

Why would you want to reveal your own name, once the pseudonym was firmly established? What purpose could it serve, except to feed your ego? Moreover, you yourself routinely reveal your real name in your e-mail address when you reply to those who send e-mail to you at your web site.

Email is not accessible to public searching

Actually, it is - depending upon the tools you have. Besides, your excuse that putting your name in email makes the situation different doesn't wash anyhow. The question isn't about the privacy of the technology; it's about whether telling ANYONE ELSE AT ALL was a good idea in the first place. People talk. People write. People send other people emails.

and I saw no need not to be honest about it with readers and correspondents. As for ego feeding, I'd like to hear a convoluted explanation from you as to how that works out psychologically.

Asked and answered - you were so full of congratulatory self-flattery, that you wanted the full credit to go to yourself. The REAL you. Plus, you wanted these naive people who were sending you praises in email; well you wanted them to meet the real "genius" (hack, spit, cough, hack) behind Tackytonics.org.
:dufus: :dufus:

The funny thing is, had I not been honest with infidels.org people about my real name, it seems likely that we'd have heard a hue and cry about it from FTill anyway.

Possibly not. It would have depended upon the rationale you gave. As it is, your rationale is so full of holes that nobody except the DDs (Deliberately Deluded) is buying it.

Sauron

March 14th 2003, 02:07 AM

On the other hand, if you've adopted a pseudonym merely to gratify your own pride, then telling people your real name is just another ego-stroking exercise; why, such lucky (?) mortal they are! They get to meet the "genius" behind Tektonics!

That made a truckload of sense.

Glad you see the light.

So would you get an ego stroke by revealing the real name behind "Sauron"

No, because my ego isn't tied to my avatar. You, on the other hand, are joined at the hip with your phony Holding pseudonym.

1. You were the one who brought up custody as a measure of inmate danger. Are you now saying that it is not?

Evasion. It is a measure,

Not evasion. Just forcing you to stick with the standard that you yourself offered. Which, now that you see cuts *against* your argument, you will now try to water down - instead of defending it.

but far from the only one, and furthermore many of the inmates at Lake CI transferred from higher custody facilities like Union CI.

They do? How many? What percentage? In absolute numbers? What's the duration of their stay?

2. I saw your revised essays, and corresponded with several other Infidels where we laughed about your inability to refute arguments without moving the goalposts.

More specifics from Saurhead's imagination!

Nope. I saw the edits you made. And I discussed with Lowder, Still, Carr, etc. how underhanded, yet totally typical, such behavior was. Holz also saw and documented your behavior.

I did not say the person I chose was "representative";

If you did not mean to pick one that was representative, then what was the point?

I already told you what the point was, Oh Dim One: I picked an inmate, in order to answer your earlier question about what kind of data could be gleaned from the FL DC website. To remind our gentle readers: Holding's question about the website, once again, was:

2) Number of violent offenders and their crimes?

And by providing such data, that also proved that you didn't know what kind of data was readily available from the website. But that's just a bonus point.
:rofl:

Picking just one out of the 6000 or so that I was around doesn't prove a danged thing.

Are you dense?
:duh:
It answered your earlier question about what kind of data could be gleaned from the FL DC website. Which was precisely why I gave the example - to show that someone's criminal record, sentence, etc. could easily be discovered.

I picked a random inmate to perouse, and show that one can indeed know where they're located, and what their crimes are. A
fact you didn't seem to know, BTW.

I was well aware of it,

Sheesh. Obviously you were not aware that the website had such data, since you had to ask me the following question: 2) Number of violent offenders and their crimes?

You did not, in fact, know it - or else your question was nonsensical. This is just another case-in-point as to why you are a liar. You couldn't simply admit that you goofed here, and were unfamiliar with the website's contents. You had to protect your online internet ego, so you lied to cover your mistake.

3. And finally, you've yet to show that the individual inmate you offered up here is representative of the inmate population anyhow. For all anyone knows, you cherry-picked someone here as an extreme case.

For all you want to know, for all the obsession you have, that's inevitably what you will say just to keep your frustation sedated.

Translation: you shot your mouth off, and are now unable to support your argument.

You want a complete list of all the inmates that worked for me, that I dealt with most?

Trying to twist my statement? Tsk, tsk. I don't give a rip about the ones that worked for you. I want what I asked for - to wit:

If it's your contention that this person is representative, then show your statistical data that demonstrates they are within a reasonable range of the median inmate in terms of type of offense, sentence, etc.

There were probably about 500.

In a prison with a maximum capacity of 991? Is this another one of your gross exaggerations and inflations? Even allowing for turnover in the prison of 25% per year, you're still asking us to believe that somewhere between a quarter and half of the inmates worked for you at any given time. Quite a little fiefdom you have going there.
:rofl: :rofl:

See why dismissing your claims is so easy? They simply don't add up.

Though why I should waste time for your sake when you won't even provide hard details of my alleged excesses, I can't imagine.

That's the burden you place on yourself, Mr J Pretentious Holding, by making such grandiose claims. Avoid such claims in the future, and substantiation won't be necessary.

Telling an inmate too much information (real name, state of residence, county/town of residence, etc.) can be a risky venture. No one disputes that. But again: the situations are not equal. In the pen pal scenario, they have yet to divulge any information to the inmate

Which still dodges the question of why anyone should not do whatever they feel is necessary to cut off such accessibility by any means possible.

Doesn't dodge the question at all.

1.You've already given away all the hints and clues necessary for someone to find out whatever they want to find out about you, so "cutting off accessibility" isn't even a possibility in your scenario any longer;

2. You don't apply the "cut off by any means possible" rule in a consistent manner; instead, you tell other people your name - people whom you may only know from email correspondence (not a really good way to judge someone's character);

3. You don't apply the "cut off by any means possible" rule in other areas of your life, such as getting a legal change of name, changing your checks, credit references, etc., tthus contradicting the any of "any means possible";

The threat you ask us to believe simply does not exist.

You use a pseudonym for the same reason that you use the royal "we" when you write on your Tackytonics website - it's ego stroking, pure and simple.

Heavens, will you be forced to continue using pseudonym for the rest of your life? Eek! Hide!

:shy: :shy: :shy:

By now it is so well known,

Yes. Kind of like Enron is well-known.
:rofl:

having been used in publications, that I will continue to use it regardless of such threats. I may even have it legally changed for convenience purposes.

And now we get to the core of the matter. There never was any such threat in the first place, you simply wanted a nom-de-plume. Why you didn't just admit that all along, instead of creating this Indiana Jones fantasy is truly a bizarre story.

Sauron

March 14th 2003, 02:15 AM

Huh? I just copied some relevant sections from the website. I never claimed I copied the entire site's contents into my post.

More evasion. It remains that you left it out, and that it was highly pertinent data in context.

Horse hockey. You simply slammed the FL DC website and claimed that they left the data out, before checking to see. Again: more proof that you don't even know the contents of the website for the facility that you yourself worked at.

Yes, you truly do learn well from your master FTill.

Yeah. Till again. Don't know what he's got to do with anything. He must be your private demon, because you accuse any opponent of being Till.

Psst! Hey, J. Paranoid Holding - guess what? Till's coming over to your house tonight! He's gonna climb up on your rooftop! He's got a secret CIA blackbox, so he can listen in on your brainwaves! Got your aluminum hat ready??
:lol:

WHY - you're not a guard.

Oh, that explains it: "Why?" "Because!"

No, Why - because you aint' the same as a guard. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

HOW - you're obviously not guard material.

True. To be an average guard I would have to be much less educated.

Many guards are quite educated. I know several guards that have BA or Masters either in one of the soft social sciences (English, history) or in Criminology. No, Dear Holding, the reason you're not guard material is precisely what I said earlier: too much ego, not enough ability to remain emotionally detached.

* equal frequency of confrontations with inmates?

Yes. If they don't they are not doing their job.

No. You, as a librarian, do not have an equal amount of confrontations with inmates, as the guards do. Did you simply misunderstand the question, or is this just another bald-faced lie?

* equal intensity of conflict with inmates?

Probably not always, since guards as a whole tend to have poor conflict resolution skills and thereby tend to escalate rather than subdue any conflicts.

Actually, guards have superior conflict resolution skills - that is, in fact, one of the criterion for having the job in the first place. Moreover, your past history of interaction with people shows that you, as a particular individual, have abysmal conflict resolution skills.

One further factor that refutes your claim is consideration of the kinds of isues we're talking about here. The average inmate-guard conflict is far more volatile a conflict, than you would ever see as a (chuckle) librarian. You can't really compare

(a) breaking up an assault or stopping a prison rape - something a guard would do; to

(b) complaining to an inmate that they turned in a book late.

You really are a piece of work; you know that?
:rofl:

* equal amounts of disciplinary events?

Yes. Again if they do not, they are not doing their job.

Wrong. Librarians do not see or interact with 1/100th of the amount of disciplinary events that a guard would see/interact with. Not in the total number, nor in the intensity of the disciplinary event. Again: comparing yourself to a guard is a massively bogus comparison.

* carrying out disciplinary orders?

Like what?

Solitary confinement. Extra work duty. Executing a lockdown order, etc. Again: guards see and enforce about, oh, a thousand times more of that kind of activity than you as a librarian would.

* Strip searches?

Not here. Searches of inmate property, yes.

Guards do both of these. Are you telling me that librarians conduct searches of inmate property? You actually go back to their cells and go through all their belongings? I don't believe it. And believe me - I'll check it tomorrow to make sure.

* Transporting violent prisoners to/from counseling / medical facilities / legal appointments / etc?

Oooh, transporting. That would make 'em mad.

That wasn't the point. The act of transporting is a very dangerous thing, because a lot of escapes, and "runs" happen at that time. That, or assaults on the guards happen at such a time. My dad and nephew have both told me about umpteen number of incidents where they've had to wrestle someone to the ground and/or restrain them during a transport.

Seems to me they need as many as 2-3 guards to do such a job.

All that does is boost my argument, that guards face substantially more danger than librarians ever would. Unless it takes 2-3 librarians to check out a book for an inmate?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Keep in mind these same guys also come into the library unescorted.

BZZZZT. Not parallel.

First, the act of transport offers them the opportunity to escape (or, the inmates believe that it does). Going to the library doesn't give them that chance. No reason to misbehave, then.

Secondly, library privileges are selective. Not everyone gets them. Those that do are the ones that have already demonstrated that they can behave themselves. However, those inmates needing transport are not selectively filtered like that - if someone needs medical atention, or has a legal appointment, there is no correlation between that and "good behavior". Therefore all other things being equal, the ones who show up in the library pose less danger than the ones being transported by guards.

Thirdly, the act of transport gives them a chance to take revenge on a guard, or "make their mark" with their fellow cons, by taking on "the man". Even if they lose, they still gain respect. Somehow, I doubt that challenging the mighty LIBRARIAN would get such an inmate anything except a round of laughter and a visit from Big Bubba.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You really think your profession and interaction exposes you to anything remotely the same as a prison guard experiences?

Substantially the same.

Then you're a deluded wankster - like my nephew said.

You merely cherry-picked unique duties as though that told the story completely.

On the contrary. The duties I picked are duties which are performed only by guards, and not performed by you at all. Librarians do none of the things that I listed:

* equal frequency of confrontations with inmates?
* equal intensity of conflict with inmates?
* equal amounts of disciplinary events?
* carrying out disciplinary orders?
* Strip searches?
* Transporting violent prisoners to/from counseling / medical facilities / legal appointments / etc?

2. Actually, the prisons are major sources of bargain-basement labor for telemarketers and credit-card companies. Funny that you don't know that?

I knew it. Funny how you fail to see how the data validates my claims.

It does not validate your claim. You made the following sarcastic comment:

Oh, forgive me. I forgot that listings of bank accounts, credit card accounts, etc. were being freely distributed in prisons.

implying that inmates could not get such credit data. My two citations showed otherwise. Your claim is thus refuted. (This is an example of another trait you have - claiming that a successful defense of my position is somehow a win for *your* argument).

1. Yeah, right - if you're in the same category as these authors, then roadkill carcass is the same category as cheese pizza.

More specifics from the King of Specifics! Till blah blah blah

Yawn. Just because you're obsessed with Till, doesn't mean that everyone else is. I've never met the man; only exchanged a half-dozen emails or so with him.

Whether you have met him is not the issue.

It must be the issue, at least for you - since you constantly accuse me of having "learned from him", or that he is "my master". Kinda hard to learn from someone that you barely know or even read.

You follow his style to a T, as your entire exchange here shows, and even this last answer: Evade by changing the point.

I did not change the point - you claimed that being childish, unprofessional and lacking in professional courtesy was a hallmark of some famous authors. My response was meant to remind you that, even if that were true, you aren't equal (not by far) to the authors that you listed. So justifying your behavior by pointing to them is
(a) begging the question, because you still failed to justify your actions; and
(b) invalid in your case, because you don't fit in the same category as the authors you offered as examples.

I'm not the one posturing and claiming to be an apologist. Nor am I the one with a puerile website advertising "come one, come all" to argue with you about such topics.

True. You are rather the one refusing to engage such debate and instead obsessively focussing on an irrelevant peripheral.

As I said: it's not peripheral at all - especially to someone who poses as a christian apologist. The reality is that you are a fraud and a liar. Both points go to the heart of whether anyone should take you seriously as an apologist. You're the online equivalent of a credit-card scammer or internet spam king. The telemarketer, used car salesmans, or ambulance-chasing attorney that everyone despises and would like to see put out of business.

As for debating you - let's see.

1. You lie about your opponent's positions;

2. You hide points that your opponent makes against you, so that your "cheering section" cannot see them;

3. You refuse to link to the opponent's own arguments, so that the audience can see the actual quote and context - and when you are challenged about this refusal, you try to rationalize your unprofessionalism away;

4. You edit your own responses, so as to try and hide your defeat from others - something I've seen, Lippard has seen, Lowder, Carr and Holz as well;
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/brian_holtz/trilemma_holtz.shtml

5. You fail to answer direct questions that are put to you (why do you consider Answers in Genesis to be authoritative, hmm?);

Given all the above, kindly explain what ANYONE's motivation should be, in debating you?

Unless, of course, they're in a forum where you can't pull your tricks and get away with them

I'll leave it to Dee Dee to defend the implied slur against her character and that of the other moderators here.

She has nothing to defend - it was not a slur. The fact is that she and the other mods are on record as not wanting to enforce any rules of debate. That's their choice; it's their BBS system and they can have whatever rules they want. But at the same time, they have to choose if they want a process that gets to the bottom of the truth, or are they just interested in a mud fight.

Jaltus

March 14th 2003, 02:29 AM

The fact is that she and the other mods are on record as not wanting to enforce any rules of debate I think you missed the point. We do enforce some rules, but in terms of formal debating, you would need to go to a different section of this very website in order to participate in such an event.

Feel free to do so.

Sauron

March 14th 2003, 02:36 AM

Dee Dee Warren said:

The analogy fails on several grounds (I am a legal professional by trade) but in general it is the two attorneys who must persuade the jury of the flaws of the other case. The Judge (except for rules of law that must be decided) cannot have adjudicate that another side is not allowed to NOT deal with evidence or say a silly argument. It is the job of the opposing counsel to capitalize on such things.

No, I dont' think it fails at all. Tell me, does the judge interfere in any of the following situations?

* badgering the witness ("your honor, counsel is badgering the witness")
* getting off track ("relevance, your honor?" "Does counsel have a question to ask somewhere, anywhere today?")
* counsel drawing conclusions ("your honor, is counsel going to be allowed to testify?")

It may be the job of the opposing counsel to bring such infractions to the attention of the court - but the only reason that the counsel will do so, is because he/she knows that the objection is valid, and the judge will act upon them. And that's precisely the debate architecture that is lacking on TWeb.

Moreover, there is an entire framework of law, including past case law, that determines even before the trial starts - what kind of evidence is admissible, and what kind is not. Again: each counsel has to bring those things to the attentionn of the court - no argument there. But a framework of how to qualify, or disqualify, any given piece of evidence certainly does exist. Another piece of "debate architecture" that is missing on Tweb.

Either you did not understand my point, or you've seriously overlooked these kinds of things, Dee Dee. The above is precisely what I'm talking about when I mentioned structured rules of debate.

PS - I don't know what transpired between you & Till; but I highly doub that Till had wanted was rules that prevented his opponent from making arguments that were "bad" in Till's subjective opinoin of course. I suspect that it was closer to the legal analogy I mentioned here; determining what kind of evidence was admissible or not. But as I said: I don't know the context of your interaction with Till.

You are not using your real name either so your comment are hollow.

No, they're not. Because I'm not offering up a transparently dishonest reason for using the avatar. I use it because I enjoy it.

Holding is free to use an online persona or an avatar, just like anyone else. No one has to divulge their real identity. Where Holding steps into the doo-doo is when he states his reason for the persona - it's simply not believable, and reeks of pretentiousness. I don't give a rip that he uses a phoney name; but at least have the integrity not to lie about the reason for doing so.

JP had indicated that he does not wish to further discuss his reasons for wanting to maintain the privacy of his real name.

I don't blame him. The position is increasingly undefensible, and his efforts are only underscoring how ridiculous it is.

I understand your position about respecting his wishes. And I have no problem with it. But don't expect that anyone is going to believe his stated justification.

That was a really dumb comment Sauron. Why would I make the same offer to him. He is not bellyaching about the pretentiousness of psuedonyms, you are

Actually, Dee Dee, the only "dumb" thing here is your response. I'm not bellyaching about pseudonyms being pretentious. I'm specifically discussing Holding's dishonest reason given for using one.

It's not the pseudonym - it's the stated reason for using one. Since the stated reason is obviously not true, then the conclusion is that it is being used for pretentiousness.

Did you get it that time?